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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the exact filtering rule (new or in-progress and older than hours) and a data-availability caveat that AWB state only appears where the marketplace reports it.

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, front-loaded with the report type and the core filter, with the AWB caveat appended as a qualifier. No filler, though the bracketed tag is slightly clunky.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey the report's purpose and quirks. It does that, including the handover-deadline metric and the AWB caveat; the main omission is guidance on how it relates to the other order tools.

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 the schema already documents hours, older_than_hours, and account. The description only restates the age threshold in prose and adds nothing about the account parameter or the aliasing of hours, so 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 resource (orders still new/in progress, older than N hours) plus the computed value (how far past the handover deadline), which an agent can tell apart from orders_list at a glance. The '[Analysis]' tag signals it is a derived report rather than a raw listing. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 scope (stale unshipped orders past handover deadline) implies when it is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as orders_list or orders_count. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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