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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only that statuses are included in the response. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or which orders are returned.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency for a filtering list operation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation that documents results. The description therefore needs to explain the return shape, pagination, and the role of client_reference, and it does none of these.

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 single parameter client_reference has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it filters the list, whether it is a prefix match, or whether omitting it returns all orders.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('List your ... orders') and says the results include statuses. The qualifier 'actual' hints that this is distinct from draft-oriented siblings such as list_drafts, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_order or list_drafts. The agent must infer that list_orders lists orders and get_order retrieves one order.

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