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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses non-obvious search behavior: numeric queries can match both externalOrderId and prefixed display numbers such as Creme10129. It also explains that shopId limits to one shop and recipientName disambiguates, but it does not describe return shape, permissions, or default search scope explicitly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and alternative tool, then adds compact behavioral details. It is appropriately sized, though the recipientName reference is questionable and slightly weakens an otherwise efficient structure.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and full schema description coverage, the description covers the main search modes, the key sibling alternative, numeric matching behavior, and result-limiting guidance. It omits some context around intentId and permissions, but the core invocation needs are addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, shopId, intentId, and openOnly. The description adds valuable query-matching semantics and shopId/disambiguation guidance, but it references a recipientName parameter that does not appear in the schema, while intentId is only covered by the schema description.

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: find orders in Zineps by order number, track & trace, or recipient email. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling FetchWebshopOrder for live webshop data, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit alternative tool and the condition for using it: use FetchWebshopOrder instead for live Shopify/WooCommerce/CCV Shop data. It also specifies when to use shopId to limit results and recipientName to disambiguate, leaving little inference for the agent.

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