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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the customer must be signed in and that the client will prompt sign-in if needed.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. Purpose, authentication requirement, and usage triggers are front-loaded in a logical order.

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, full parameter coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition provides enough context for correct invocation. It covers authentication and use cases, though it omits return-shape and pagination details that are already handled elsewhere.

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%, and the enum for include is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any syntax or filtering details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it lists the signed-in customer's orders, including their statuses. This clearly separates it from order-detail or checkout tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison.

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?

It gives clear triggering scenarios: asking what they have, picking up a saved order, or checking order status. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives such as describe_order or resume_order.

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