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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It usefully adds the 'created by the agent' scope and return contents, but omits pagination, ordering, and limit behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, return values, and usage are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place for such a simple listing tool.

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 rich schema descriptions, safety annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The main omission is explicit sibling routing and any note about default limit or pagination.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both limit and status. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Lista pedidos de serviço'), scopes it to orders 'criados pelo agente', and names returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as get_service_order or list_field_orders.

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?

The final sentence provides an implied use case ('acompanhar o pipeline de pedidos'), but it does not say when to choose this tool over get_service_order or list_field_orders, nor does it state any exclusions.

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