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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful pagination context ('returns visible packs and next_cursor for the next page'), but does not disclose ordering, default page size, or what 'visible' means.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then scoping and pagination details in the same compact sentence. The bilingual duplication doubles length but each language version is efficient.

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 simple read-only list tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description explaining returned packs plus next_cursor is adequate. It still omits status value semantics and default behaviors, leaving minor gaps 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does name all three parameters (status, limit, cursor) with their roles—status as a filter, cursor for the next page. However, it gives no allowed status values, limit bounds, or cursor format, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 (list) and resource (order packs) with an added ownership scope 'the caller owner's order packs.' It is distinguishable from get_order_pack by the plural/list nature, though it never explicitly names sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_order_pack, list_order_pack_messages, or other listing siblings, and no stated preconditions. The only usage signal is the implicit ownership scoping and pagination mention.

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