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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read of order records. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/page_size params, nothing about authorization/prerequisite for promoter data, and nothing about the shape 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and scope come before the parenthetical context. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is more promotional than operational.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage mean the description is the only source of information, and it omits return shape, pagination semantics, and auth prerequisites. For a four-parameter data-retrieval tool this is materially 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the time range, which maps loosely to start_time/end_time, but says nothing about expected format or about the page/page_size parameters, leaving two of four parameters entirely unexplained.

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 (retrieve 'order details'), resource ('promoter order'), scope ('in a time range') and a platform qualifier ('JD') that separates it from cps_pdd_orders. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the platform-specific siblings.

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 parenthetical 'source for commission settlement & refund tracking' implies a downstream use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no conditions for choosing this over cps_pdd_orders or cps_jd_convert. Usage is only hinted at.

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