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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the state machine (new → reserved → … → shipped), the fields included (credit status, expected ship date), and the exact filter semantics (e.g., 'exact variant/channel SKU'). This goes beyond mere safety flags, although it does not discuss pagination or rate limits—but the output schema and limit/offset parameters handle that.

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, each earning its place. The first defines what the tool returns and the domain; the second lists the filter dimensions. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with 7 optional parameters and a complete input/output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the domain, the state lifecycle, the included fields, and the filterable attributes. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the schema covers limit/offset. Overall, it is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the filters and adds 'exact' to SKU matching, but it doesn't meaningfully extend beyond the schema. At baseline 3, this is acceptable since 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a search operation for zobship fulfillment orders, specifying the pipeline and key attributes (state, fulfillment type, credit status, expected ship date). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_orders and get_oms_order by focusing on the zobship fulfillment pipeline.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching for orders in the zobship fulfillment pipeline. It provides the relevant filter dimensions (channel, state, store, warehouse, SKU) and the data returned, giving contextual guidance without explicitly naming alternative tools. It could improve by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for general sales orders), but the context is strong.

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