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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine content-level caveat beyond that structured data: the result is limited to six cases and deliberately omits expected answers, which prevents the agent from assuming a scoring-ready payload. Return format and per-case fields remain unspecified.

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 short sentences with no filler; the scope (six synthetic Japanese cases) is front-loaded and the caveat about missing answers follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned, how many, and what is withheld. It could go further by noting whether case identifiers are included for use with get_order_case, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and closed (additionalProperties=false), consistent with the description's no-argument list operation.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (order-evaluation cases) and quantifies the scope (six synthetic Japanese cases), which delimits it from the singular get_order_case sibling. It stops short of explicitly stating it is the enumeration counterpart to get_order_case/score_order_batch, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery step before fetching a specific case or scoring, but no when-to-use, prerequisite, or named alternative is given. The note that expected answers are absent hints another tool supplies them, yet the sibling get_order_eval_contract is never mentioned.

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