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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the seller-side scoping, pagination behavior, and a practical status filter example. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema alone convey.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the core function and scope, the second adds a filter use case and sibling relationship. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only paginated list, the description covers scope, pagination, filtering, and the sibling alternative. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't detail the response shape beyond the implied next_cursor from the input schema; this is a minor gap for an agent needing exact response fields.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining why you'd filter by status and giving a concrete enum example ('paid_awaiting_fulfillment'), but it doesn't materially enrich cursor or page_size beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List orders placed against the bound seller's products (seller-side view), paginated.' It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from the sibling by saying 'This is the seller-equivalent of orders_list', preventing confusion with orders_list or seller_get_order.

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?

The description tells when to use the tool (to view orders on the seller's own products) and gives a concrete filter example: status 'paid_awaiting_fulfillment' to find orders that need shipping. Naming orders_list as the sibling counterpart provides an explicit alternative, making the usage context clear.

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