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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the default scope is today, results are sorted newest first, and the returned field set is named. It does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads purpose, default scope, sort order and returned fields; the second handles filtering with per-value glosses. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information (period default, sort) comes first.

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 no output schema, naming the return fields is the right compensating move and it is done here. Annotations plus a fully documented schema cover the remaining surface. The only gap for a 7-parameter list tool is what happens when more orders exist than the limit, which is left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including the from/to override and the enum values, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning on top: the 'default today' period and the gloss on what 'open' means, while the rest repeats schema content.

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 states a specific resource and scope ('Orders for a period (default today), newest first') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g. get_order for a single order, get_sales_summary for aggregates), so it stops short of full 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?

Usage for the status filter is implied well through value glosses ('open (in the kitchen or waiting)'), which tells the agent when to pick each status. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_order' routing and no stated exclusions, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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