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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, but the description adds valuable traits beyond them: it is cheap, loads no order data, counts every order ever recorded, and accepts no date/status/source filter. This discloses performance and scope behavior that an agent cannot get from annotations or schema alone.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, then cost/scope behavior, then alternatives. Every sentence earns its place: the examples clarify intent, the cost note justifies use, and the alternative routing prevents misuse.

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 count tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns (a count), what it ignores (filters), and where to go for filtered/time-boxed needs. Nothing material is missing.

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 the `outlets` parameter is already fully documented. The description reinforces its meaning ('in total or at given outlets') but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource ('How many orders the company has') and immediately scopes it ('in total or at given outlets'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_orders and get_financial_summary as alternatives, so an agent can select correctly without opening other schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use (unfiltered total counts, outlet-specific counts) and when-not-to-use ('anything time-boxed or filtered'), then names the correct alternatives: get_orders with its `matching` field, or get_financial_summary for periods. Nothing is left to inference.

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