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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds materially new behavior: required credentials (buyer API key with 'audit' scope, buyer session, or Opedd connector sign-in), newest-first ordering, and the registry fingerprint semantics. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot express.

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 purpose, then the order_id variant, then auth — a sensible information hierarchy. The parenthetical field list is dense but each element earns its place; only marginal tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned line fields and the extra Schedule/fingerprint data in single-order mode, and it covers auth and pagination. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping order_id to concrete return behavior ('returns one order, each line with its Schedule text and the SHA-256 fingerprint'), adding meaning the schema's one-line field description does not convey.

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 and resource (lists the account's licence orders) plus the ordering and per-line contents, which no sibling tool shares. It also disambiguates its two modes (list vs. single order via order_id), so an agent can tell it apart from place_licence_order and verify_license without opening a 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?

Provides a clear conditional: omit order_id to page through orders, supply order_id to retrieve one order with Schedule text and registry fingerprint. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., browse_registry, verify_license) or state exclusions, so usage is clear but not fully routed.

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