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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious matching behavior: numeric queries can hit both externalOrderId and prefixed display numbers, with a concrete example. It does not say whether matching is exact or prefix/substring, nor whether results are ordered or paginated beyond 'limit'.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the searchable fields front-loaded and the numeric-matching nuance immediately after. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the name alone.

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 low-complexity read-only search with a fully described schema, this is adequate but incomplete: with no output schema, the description never says what an order record contains or how many results come back by default. It also omits what happens when nothing matches (empty list vs error).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the accepted query forms and that shopId narrows to a single shop, but adds nothing about limit, openOnly, or intentId.

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 ('Find orders in Zineps') plus three query modes (order number, track & trace, recipient email), which is clearly more than the title restates. It never names a sibling (e.g. LookupByTrackTrace, OrderInvestigation, FetchWebshopOrder), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 query modes imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the track-trace-centric siblings that overlap with it. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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