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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond annotations: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and currency_code must be fetched via get_organization_settings before stating a monetary value. That is a real cross-tool dependency the schema does not convey.

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 action and filters, then the currency caveat. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key trap (currency-less amounts and the required companion call) but does not sketch the returned record shape or restate pagination behavior. The critical gap for an agent reasoning about money is addressed, so it is nearly complete.

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 page, per_page, search, status, vendor_id, and project_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates three of the filters and adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('change orders') plus the filterable dimensions, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_change_order, create_change_order, update_change_order, and delete_change_order. An agent can identify the right tool without opening any schema.

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 when to use it by naming the available filters (status, vendor_id, project_id), which tells the agent this is the browsing/query tool as opposed to the single-record getter. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative named for cases where the agent needs one specific change order.

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