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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful auth context (Bearer cmt_ key and how an account holder obtains one), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the account has few or no orders.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and does the real work in one line, which is good. The second sentence mixes a legitimate prerequisite with a phone number that an agent cannot act on, so it is not pure waste but not fully earned either.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only annotations plus complete parameter schema cover safety and inputs. What is missing is modest: ordering guarantees and behavior when the result set is empty.

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 both limit and active_only are already self-documenting, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, neither confirming sort order for the limit nor defining 'delivered' beyond the schema's wording.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: the account's latest orders, returned with their status. It is distinguishable from book_delivery and get_quote, but the phrase 'with their status' partially overlaps the sibling order_status, and the description never resolves that overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than order_status, get_quote, or book_delivery, and no note on when a recent-orders listing is the right call. The only conditional content is credential acquisition, which is a precondition rather than tool-selection guidance.

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