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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it guarantees no PII is ever returned, explains why the error reason is intentionally hidden (to avoid leaking customer data), and notes the conditional requirement for project_id based on the project's configuration. All this is beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and PII-free guarantee, then systematically covers use case, parameters, return structure, and a conditional routing note, with no redundancy.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it explains the response shape ({orders:[...], total}), the meaning of syncStatus, the deliberate absence of error reasons, and the conditional project_id behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 covers 75% of parameters (limit, errors_only, connection_id), but the description adds meaning for all four: it specifies the default and max for limit, the filtering intent of errors_only, the restriction and source for connection_id (from get_order_overview), and clarifies project_id's optionality with a route to list_projects. This significantly compensates for the missing project_id schema description.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent order records') and immediately clarifies the PII-free nature, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It explicitly routes to list_projects when project_id is required, making differentiation clear.

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 provides a clear primary use case ('Best for spotting sync problems') and explains how to filter with errors_only. It also gives an explicit exception: 'project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects)', which guides the agent to the correct alternative.

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