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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them: the newest-first ordering and the account-connection/auth requirement, which the annotations do not convey.

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, zero filler. The resource and result ordering are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is appended only after the core purpose is established.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, an account prerequisite, and annotations that carry the safety semantics, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing. Return values are already enumerative and the output schema covers structure.

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 100% with a single, well-described 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 50). The description's 'newest first' phrasing aligns with the schema's own description but adds no new syntax or format detail — baseline 3 is appropriate 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 (Lists) and resource (the signed-in user's TrimCarbon offset orders) and even enumerates the relevant fields returned (date, source, kg CO₂, status, certificate link). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_certificate (single certificate) or get_my_impact (aggregate impact figures).

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?

Gives a real precondition — the user must have connected their TrimCarbon account — which is actionable context for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., preferring get_certificate for a single order's certificate), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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