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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that results are summaries only and exclude customer contact details and payment identifiers. The minor-units money convention is also behavioral information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 sentences, purpose first, then return-scope caveat, then the customerEmail routing hint, then the money-format note. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and none repeats schema or annotations.

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 and five parameters at 20% description coverage, the description should carry more of the load. It covers the return shape and money encoding, but leaves pagination (limit/cursor) and the required projectId scope unexplained, which matters for correct invocation.

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 only 20%, and the enum's schema description is just 'OrderFinancialStatus', so the description has to compensate. It does explain customerEmail's practical use and implies financialStatus semantics via 'payment state', but says nothing about limit, cursor, or projectId, leaving pagination behavior undocumented.

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 and resource ('Find storefront orders') and adds a concrete investigative purpose ('when investigating a payment state or fulfillment state'), which separates it from catalog-oriented siblings like find_products. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_order, which is the closest sibling, 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?

Gives clear usage context (payment/fulfillment state investigations) and a concrete routing hint: use customerEmail to look up a known customer's orders. It never states when to prefer get_order over this tool, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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