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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a required separate permission scope ('read:sales'), that the call is free, and the pagination contract (returns nextCursor, pass as cursor to continue). That pagination and auth disclosure is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by access cost and pagination. Every sentence carries information, though 'Read-only' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, access requirement, cost, and pagination continuation. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of a 5.

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 both 'limit' and 'cursor' are already documented. The description reinforces the pagination semantics (nextCursor -> cursor) but adds no syntax, range, or default detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (read/list) and resource ('website commerce orders') plus the notable scope detail 'including buyer details'. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly names the closest relative, the singular soclo_sales_order, so the list-vs-single distinction is left implicit.

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?

The description implies usage (listing orders) and surfaces access prerequisites ('with the separate read:sales permission', 'free'), which helps an agent decide whether the call will succeed. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not contrast itself with the single-order sibling soclo_sales_order, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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