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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully defines what counts as 'active', which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults, or ordering of results. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the parenthetical definition of 'active' appended economically. 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?

For a simple zero-required-param read/list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic gap (what 'active' means). It lacks only routing guidance relative to order_history, which keeps it from a 5.

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% with only two optional pagination params (page, limit) fully documented with defaults and max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (active orders) and clarifies the domain meaning of 'active' as numbers awaiting or having received an SMS. It distinguishes itself from the broader order_history/get_order siblings by the 'currently active' qualifier, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: the word 'currently active' suggests this is the live/in-flight view as opposed to order_history, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named. An agent can infer intent but must guess at the boundary with order_history.

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