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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, the truncated flag when more results exist, and the exact composition of what counts as an ask versus a bid. It stops short of saying anything about pagination cursors or cross-grade aggregation limits.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and the parenthetical definitions of asks and bids do real work rather than restating the name. The first sentence is dense and carries a lot of nested clauses, but there is no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the ordering, the truncation indicator, and the kind/id fields an agent needs for a follow-up cancel. Only the when-to-use-versus-orders_list guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the grade slug pattern and the 1-100 limit with default 50. The description restates the limit range and adds the "truncated when there are more" signal, but contributes no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 your resting orders on grades") and immediately defines the scope: a seller's asks (active fixed-price listings plus live token sell orders) and a buyer's bids (open intents plus live token buy orders). That definition lets an agent tell it apart from orders_list, orders_book, and intents_list_open without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the "mine" scoping and by the pointer that each order carries kind and id for orders_cancel, which tells the agent this is a pre-cancel inspection call. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over orders_list or intents_list_open, and gives no exclusions, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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