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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral information beyond them: a seven-day lookback window, newest-first ordering, a fresh order_handle issued on each call (implying non-stable identifiers), and the two-hour payment eligibility limit.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence earns its place by routing to get_order_status/cancel_order and giving the payment age constraint. Slightly dense, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Window, ordering, follow-up tools and the payment-age caveat are all covered; only pagination/limit interaction and how the seven-day window behaves relative to the limit parameter are left implicit.

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% and both parameters (limit, status) are documented in the schema. The description hints at the status semantics (open/reserved, cancellable) and the default ordering, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Listet die Bestellungen ... fuer das verbundene Kundenkonto") with explicit scope (last seven days, newest first) and the returned artifact (fresh order_handle). It also names sibling tools (get_order_status, cancel_order) so the agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from its follow-ups.

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?

It states the practical use case (finding older orders from other conversations), which successor tools to call, and the boundary condition that only orders up to two hours old can be paid. No explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, but the routing context is clear.

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