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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral constraint beyond that — the id must be sourced from get_employee_sales and cannot be a name — but says nothing about pagination behavior or what the result set looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint, and the illustrative quotes carry real disambiguating weight rather than filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the dependency chain on get_employee_sales. Return shape is undocumented, but with no output schema and a list-style tool that 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (including page, pageSize, outlets, stations, and date bounds) are already documented. The description's only parameter-level contribution repeats the schema's own wording for employeeId, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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 and resource with an explicit scope limit: 'The orders ONE staff member rang up in a date range.' The capitalized 'ONE' plus the employee-scoped framing cleanly separates it from hub_get_orders and hub_get_customer_orders 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use context ('back up a claim about a person') with two worked examples, and states the prerequisite that the employee id must come from get_employee_sales rather than a name. It never explicitly names the sibling to prefer when you want all orders, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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