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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's repetition of 'Read-only' adds little. However, it usefully discloses the session authentication requirement and clarifies that results include both in-progress and past orders with specific fields.

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 definition is two sentences with no wasted text. The scope and return content are front-loaded, and the authentication requirement follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides what the agent needs: whose data is returned, which order categories are included, the key fields, and the sign-in prerequisite. Return-value structure is appropriately left to the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input 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: returning the signed-in customer's orders. It further distinguishes the two returned groups, `current` and `history`, and lists the fields included, so an agent can identify the tool's scope without opening its 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?

Usage is implied by the signed-in-customer scope and the explicit sign-in prerequisite, but the description does not name alternatives such as `track_order` for tracking a specific order or `auth_status` for checking authentication. It provides context but leaves when-not-to-use guidance implicit.

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