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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 3-day stuck threshold and the grouping by status/age, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not describe output format, pagination, or system effects—consistent with the low bar set by annotations.

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 sentences, both essential: the first defines the resource and grouping, the second highlights the key use case (stuck orders). No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose, and readable at a glance.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional, well-documented parameter), strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and key behavior without needing to explain return values. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from similar report tools, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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% for the single `days` parameter, fully documenting its range and default. The description does not reference the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 names the specific resource (open orders) and the organizing dimensions (fulfillment status and age), and adds a distinct behavior (surfaces orders stuck >3 days). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_wismo_digest or generic order lookups, as it is a digest specifically about fulfillment status and age.

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 implies use when an agent needs a status/age digest of open orders or wants to find stuck orders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling or exclusion. The context is clear enough for inference but lacks direct routing guidance.

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