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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the sort order and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination via cursor, the maximum page size of 100, or that archived records are excluded by default.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the ordering and return fields are front-loaded. The only weakness is that it is a fragment with no explicit verb, so a scanning agent relies on the title for the action.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum signal pagination behavior and default result-set scoping (limit 25, archived excluded). It names returned fields but leaves those operational facts to the schema alone.

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 71%, so the schema already documents the kind enum, cursor, status validity rules, and project_id. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 names the resource (change orders and change order requests), states default ordering (newest first), and lists the salient returned fields (status, project, total). It is clearly distinct from singular get_change_order and from the write-side create/update siblings, though the listing verb itself lives only in the name/title.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_change_order, list_projects-style filtering, or the other list_* tools. The only implied usage cue is the coverage of both change orders and requests in one call, which the agent must infer from the description text.

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