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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement ('Needs your key') and the role scoping, which is useful, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination for a list tool.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the alternative and the auth requirement. No filler and no redundancy.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sibling alternative, and authentication adequately. Only the default/optional behavior of 'role' and any result-set expectations are left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It ties 'role' to the buyer/seller distinction, but the enum already enumerates those values and the description does not explain what happens when role is omitted (both?) — a real gap for a 1-param tool.

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 ('List your orders') plus the scope ('as buyer or seller'), which is clear for an agent. It distinguishes itself from get_order by name, though it does not differentiate from the wider my_* family (my_listings, my_tenders, my_disputes).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'For one order with its delivery use get_order', giving a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that condition. It does not, however, cover other related cases such as disputes or delivery status queries.

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