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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the hard 100-result cap and the summary output shape with profit. No contradictions exist between description and 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and criteria, the second adds output specifics, and the third gives the critical limit. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters but all are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description contributes the summary-with-profit behavior and the hard cap, covering the non-obvious facets. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without hunting for missing details.

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%—every parameter has a detailed description, including the hard cap, date format, and the requirement for at least one filter. The description merely lists the filter types (date range, email, order number, SKU) without adding new meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('orders'), and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (date range, customer email, order number, product SKU), which clearly distinguishes it from generic search or lookup_order. The statement about returning a summary with profit per order further pins down its unique purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when searching orders by one of the listed criteria) but never states when not to use it or names an alternative. With a sibling named lookup_order, explicit routing guidance would have been valuable, but the omission drops this to merely implied usage.

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