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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication requires a portal personal token and that the tool returns connection instructions if the token is absent. This goes beyond a simple action statement and reveals important behavioral context for an unauthenticated call, though it does not describe output structure or error cases beyond the missing-token case.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose first and the auth requirement second. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is listed, whose orders, the auth requirement, and the fallback behavior when auth is missing. There are no input parameters to document, and the return content is summarized as 'orders with statuses.'

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('the signed-in customer's own orders'), and the included detail ('with statuses'). The phrase 'signed-in customer's own' distinguishes it from broader order queries and from sibling tools like track-order or my-invoices.

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 context for when to use the tool is clear: when listing the customer's own orders with statuses. It also provides a prerequisite (portal personal token) and describes the behavior when that prerequisite is missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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