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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: amounts are bare numbers and get_organization_settings must be called for currency_code, a cross-tool dependency an agent would otherwise miss. Pagination behavior exists only in the schema, not the description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The currency warning is a short, self-contained caveat that earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the filters and adds the currency caveat. It leaves pagination/default behavior (page, per_page, auto-fetch of all pages) entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap given the absent output schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the enum value lists for status, priority, and type that the description repeats. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail (e.g. that site maps to site_id, or how search composes with filters), so it does nothing beyond the schema.

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?

The opening sentence gives a clear verb+resource (list work orders) and the follow-up enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent immediately knows this is a filtered collection read. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_work_order (single-item read), so sibling differentiation relies on the naming convention rather than the text.

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: listing plus filters suggests 'use this to browse/query work orders', and the currency caveat implies a pre-check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. get_work_order for a single record).

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