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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb "List" implies a read-only operation, and the phrase "tracked" adds a scope qualifier. However, it does not state whether results are paginated, ordered, or how many records are returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter constraints are compactly listed in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter list operation, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, defines all filters, and implies a read-only action. However, it does not mention whether filters can be combined, what happens if omitted, or any output format. These are minor gaps but not critical for basic invocation.

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 input schema has two bare string properties with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly enumerates the allowed values for status ('in_force', 'not_yet_in_force', 'repealed') and instrument_type ('surtax_order', 'surtax_remission_order', 'sima_order', 'other'), fully clarifying the parameter meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "List tracked surtax / remission / SIMA orders." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_measure_detail, lookup_tariff, and recent_changes, which serve different purposes such as retrieving details or resolving duties.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention get_measure_detail or recent_changes, nor does it state circumstances where one should prefer a sibling. The reader is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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