Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent but low-value on its own. It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: that holds of both active and released status are returned, and that refresh=true actively polls the external fulfillment provider for newly-discovered holds.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences that lead with the resource and scope before usage and the refresh flag. Minor deduction for the trailing '[#2c7422]' artifact, which is stray noise rather than content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully tells the agent that a hold_uuid is returned and that holds come in active and released states. For a three-parameter read-only tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, this is close to complete, with only pagination/return-shape details absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (refresh, workspace, order_uuid) are already documented in the schema. The description restates refresh's polling behavior and adds the purpose of order_uuid only implicitly (as the source of the holds), which is marginal added value over the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the design-approval holds on an order') and immediately scopes it to active and released holds. This is clearly separable from nearby siblings such as check_fulfillment_issue or list_fulfillment_issues, which are about issues rather than design-approval holds.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete use case ('see why an order is stuck at the provider') and names the downstream tools that consume its output (approve_order_hold / request_hold_changes), plus the condition for refresh=true. It does not explicitly exclude the other fulfillment/problem-diagnosis siblings, so it stops short of a full when-not statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.