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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior: it specifies the OAuth scope requirement, the auth_required error on guest connections, and explicitly states that addresses, phone numbers, and payment details are never returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by auth requirements and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information—no redundancy or 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return types. It covers the core purpose, auth prerequisites, and data exclusions, which suffices for a read-only list operation. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the limit parameter implies pagination support. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only locale has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter. The schema itself provides constraints for limit (min/max/default) and a clear description for locale. Since coverage is not low enough to demand heavy compensation and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the signed-in user's GiftRoam orders and enumerates the returned fields (status, ETA, gift, destination, order token). This verb+resource is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_status, which likely targets a single order.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it requires an authenticated GiftRoam connection with OAuth scope orders:read, and explicitly states that a guest connection yields auth_required. It does not, however, mention when to prefer this over get_order_status, though the listing scope is implied. No exclusions are stated, but the prerequisites are clear enough.

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