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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless discloses a non-obvious output behavior: customer names are truncated ('Anna K.') unless customer_email is supplied — useful, unguessable context that shapes how the agent interprets results.

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, filter capability front-loaded, alternative routing last. Nothing redundant with annotations or the name/title.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and light annotations, the description covers what to filter on, the output-shape quirk, and where to go for details. Missing only secondary context: default ordering, how rows are paged beyond the limit param, and what fields a hit contains.

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 67%; min_total, max_total and customer_email are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partly: 'amount' signals the min/max pair's purpose and the customer_email note explains a real effect of that unlabeled param. It still doesn't clarify amount units or inclusivity, or the schema's vague 'same formats as other tools' for period.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('orders') and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, date period, customer email, product, amount, age). It also names the sibling that handles the single-record case, so an agent can distinguish it from get_order and find_products without reading 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_order for full details of one order, which is the key alternative. It also gives the conditional that changes output shape ('unless you filter by customer_email'). No guidance on limits/paging or when multi-filter combinations should be avoided, so not a full 5.

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