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

The description goes well beyond annotations. It discloses that the import runs asynchronously and directs the agent to 'watch the counts in marketplace_status.orderStats'. It also explains the exact return object shape and the meaning of status 'updated'. It details the error handling (HTTP 409 with prerequisite_not_met). All of this enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotation flags.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then progressively adds usage, behavior, error handling, and parameter sourcing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler. It is information-dense yet well-ordered, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it runs, what it returns (including status semantics), error conditions, parameter sourcing, and scope. It even directs the agent to a dependent tool (marketplace_status) for monitoring results. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden, and it does. For marketplace_id it says 'is from list_marketplaces' (source of the value). For project_id it explains it's optional, inferred for single-project customers, but required otherwise, with a pointer to list_projects. This fully clarifies the parameters beyond their raw types.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Pull orders from the channel NOW' and explicitly distinguishes this manual one-off import from the automatic sync. It also states the scope ('Marketplaces only — ads have no order sync') which further differentiates it from sibling tools. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use it when the user wants to fetch fresh orders immediately' and contrasts with the automatic sync. It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires the marketplace's connection to be active for orders') and explains the failure mode ('returns status prerequisite_not_met'). It further clarifies when project_id is needed and where to get it (list_projects). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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