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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: results are newest first, and `pending_approval` means an admin must act. It also names the returned fields, useful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the scope, the ordering, and the returned fields with no filler. Dense but every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and ordering, which is what an agent needs to consume results. Only the routing versus the sibling list_order_actions is unaddressed.

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 all four parameters, including the status enum and pagination bounds. The description only adds meaning to the `pending_approval` status value inline; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List the order actions ... on a conversation's orders') and enumerates the kinds of actions covered (refunds, cancellations, address changes, returns). It scopes the resource to a conversation, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling list_order_actions, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('a conversation's orders'), which tells the agent this is the per-conversation view, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative list_order_actions or get_conversation_orders. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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