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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety context is covered. The description adds only the auth/channel-resolution note, and that note is ambiguous ('ChannelOAuthId resolved internally') given channelOAuthId is a required caller-supplied parameter — it doesn't clarify matching behavior, result limits, or what the search searches against beyond 'visible'.

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 short sentences with the search scope front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of obscurity, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With an output schema defining return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to settle when and how to search. It leaves open whether reference is a partial or exact match, what happens when reference is omitted, and how the internal channel resolution interacts with the required channelOAuthId argument.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including the hgr_list_channels provenance for channelOAuthId, so the baseline is 3. The description's word 'visible' reinforces that references are marketplace-facing rather than internal IDs, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Searches orders/order lines') plus the lookup key ('visible order Reference'). It does not explicitly contrast with data-retrieval siblings such as hgr_get_sales or hgr_load_order_progress, but the reference-based lookup makes the intent reasonably distinct.

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 phrasing 'by visible order Reference and optional visible store' implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool named (e.g. when to prefer a sales listing over a reference search). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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