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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding return-scope behavior ('order summaries only: no customer contact details or payment identifiers') and the money-units convention, which go beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted framing: purpose first, return scope second, filter recipe third. The currency-format detail is slightly verbose but genuinely useful and does not obscure the core purpose.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing summaries and the money format. It omits pagination guidance for cursor/limit, a minor gap given the otherwise complete coverage of purpose, scope, and filtering.

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 only 20% (only financialStatus, with an uninformative 'OrderFinancialStatus' label), so the description must compensate. It clarifies customerEmail usage and the monetary convention, but leaves projectId, limit, cursor, and the financialStatus enum values unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 scopes the intent ('when investigating a payment state or fulfillment state'). The plural resource implies a list operation, distinguishing it from the singular sibling get_order, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use trigger (investigating payment/fulfillment state) and a specific recipe for the common lookup case ('to look up a known customer's orders, pass their address as customerEmail'). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to get_order for single-order retrieval.

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