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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 50-row cap, the _offset/_pagination.hasMore paging contract, the response row shape, and that omitting status includes all financial statuses. It stops short of stating permissions/auth requirements or confirming read-only behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, trigger examples, and disambiguation are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with operational caveats isolated in a short Notes block. Every sentence carries either routing or behavioral information; nothing is redundant.

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 13-parameter, no-required-args query tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, caps, paging, and a summary of returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return-field listing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the operational difference between offset and _offset for paging, ties _offset to the _pagination.hasMore flag, and states that status maps to Shopify financial status. These clarifications go beyond the field-level schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List individual orders matching filters') and enumerates the filter dimensions plus the sortable fields. It explicitly names the two confusing siblings, get_orders (aggregate) and get_order (single known order), so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening either schema.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ('show me recent orders', 'orders over $500', 'this customer's pending orders', 'orders tagged wholesale') and an explicit DISAMBIGUATION block routing aggregate analytics to get_orders and single-order lookup to get_order. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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