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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the default 7-day window, the 31-day hard cap, and the PII reduction on customer fields. The 'Works on: Demo shop (sample data)' note is a meaningful operational constraint, though its exact implication (only demo data is returned) is left slightly ambiguous.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the constraints an agent needs. No filler, though the trailing demo-shop fragment is terse enough to be mildly cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, defaults, limits, and data reduction. It leaves pagination behavior (page vs. page_token) and the account-selection rule to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 86% and the schema already documents page, per_page, account, page_token, and the two date bounds, so the description adds meaning on top rather than repeating. Its contribution is the default window and the 31-day maximum, which the created_after/created_before schema entries do not state.

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+resource ('List orders') plus the scope of the listing (date window with default and cap) and a data-shaping detail ('Customer details are reduced to name and city'). This distinguishes it from orders_get and orders_count, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never says how this differs from orders_count, unshipped_orders_report, or orders_get, nor when a caller should prefer this list over those. The only clues are the implicit 'it lists orders' framing.

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