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

With annotations already covering readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, the description adds real value beyond them: pagination behavior (pages hold up to 100 orders, reuse next_cursor as cursor) and an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It could note how totals relate to the summary but is otherwise solid.

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 scoping and routing information is front-loaded and each sentence is purposeful. However the returned fields are listed twice ('time, quantity, sales channel, totals and promo code' then 'time, number of tickets, sales channel and total in cents'), which is mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returned fields and does so, and it also covers pagination and auth. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only paginated list, though a note on date filtering (since) would round it out.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets a baseline of 3. The description only reiterates the cursor reuse and ordering, adding little beyond the schema.

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 (lists the orders of one event) plus ordering (newest first) and returned fields (time, tickets, sales channel, total in cents). It clearly routes away from the sibling summary tool with 'Use it when the summary is not enough.'

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?

Explicitly positions this against the summary path ('when the summary is not enough'), giving a clear condition for choosing it. It does not name an alternative tool directly or state exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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