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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, requires specific credentials, and that the single-order mode includes Schedule document text and SHA-256 fingerprint. It also implies pagination via cursor. It doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosed traits are substantial.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the list behavior and fields, the second explains the single-order mode and its extra payload, the third covers auth and read-only status. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main fields returned, the ordering, the pagination cursor, the single-order variant, and the auth requirement. It doesn't describe error cases or rate limits, but those are minor for this tool's complexity. The description is complete enough for an agent to call 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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for order_id (what it returns: Schedule document text and SHA-256) and implies pagination via cursor, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a resource ('buyer's licence orders'), and a clear ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes the single-order read mode via order_id, which separates it from sibling tools like place_licence_order and purchase_license. The scope is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says when to use the list mode vs. the single-order mode ('Pass order_id to read one order'), and it names the required authentication context (buyer API key with 'audit' scope or buyer session). It also states the read-only nature, which helps an agent avoid using it for mutations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the mode distinction and auth requirements provide clear usage guidance.

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