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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating returned fields (status, total, customer details, line items, dates), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or site targeting.

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 with zero waste, front-loading purpose before return content. Slightly terse for a 10-parameter tool, but nothing is padded.

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?

The return-field list compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, but for a 10-parameter, zero-required tool there is no mention of default pagination (per_page 20, max 100), how the optional site_id selects among connected sites, or date-range semantics. Adequate but incomplete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description says only 'with filters' and adds no format, default, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List WooCommerce orders') plus a scope qualifier ('with filters'). It is clearly distinguishable from woo_get_order, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this listing tool versus woo_get_order, woo_list_refunds, or the report tools. The word 'filters' hints at usage but never says when filtering is appropriate or what the alternatives are.

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