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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: results are scoped to the API key and include overall status and totals. It does not mention pagination or limits, but given the annotations cover the safety profile and the operation is a simple list, this is a strong disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The condition for use is front-loaded, followed by the scope and content of results, then the sibling alternative and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes distinct, necessary 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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with annotated safety and clear sibling routing, the description is nearly complete. It states output contents at a useful level (overall status and totals), though it doesn't describe the exact response shape or pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on response format could help, but the core invocation context is fully covered.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled; no parameter detail is missing.

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 description states a precise verb-resource pair: 'List orders placed with this API key, including overall status and totals.' It also differentiates from the sibling get_order_status by framing this as the order-level list while the sibling is for per-link detail. Scope and outcome are unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use: when the user wants order history or needs to find an order id. It names the alternative get_order_status for per-link detail on a specific id and states the API key prerequisite. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no inference needed.

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