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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the keyset pagination contract: one page per call and a mandatory loop until hasMore is false. It also discloses that reservation state is included in results, which is behavioral information not present in the annotations. It stops short of describing rate limits or ordering of results.

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 short sentences, scope stated first and the pagination imperative second. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, pagination termination, and the notable inclusion of reservation state. Minor gap: it does not mention that all four parameters are optional or describe how filters combine across chains, but nothing essential to a correct call is absent.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents cursor and chainId meaningfully, so the schema carries most of the load. The description reinforces keyset semantics and ties the cursor to nextCursor, but adds no detail on limit bounds or the marketAddress/chainId interaction beyond what the schema says.

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 (List) and resource (open orders) with explicit scope: one keyset page of the authenticated MCP wallet's own orders. The 'authenticated wallet's' qualifier separates it from global-listing siblings like list_order_events or get_positions without needing the 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?

The description gives operative pagination guidance ('Always continue with nextCursor until hasMore is false'), which is genuinely actionable, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_order_events or get_positions. Usage is implied by the name and scope rather than spelled out with exclusions.

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