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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuinely useful traits: sort order (newest first), page size (up to 100), the next_cursor-to-cursor round trip, and the required Cotlet API key scope. These go beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded and reasonably tight, but 'newest first' and 'wholesale orders' are each stated twice in consecutive sentences, which is wasted repetition for a definition this short.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (retailer, total, status, ship-by date). Combined with auth requirements and pagination mechanics, it is essentially complete for a list tool, missing only explicit sibling disambiguation.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value by describing the cursor round trip, without adding format or constraint detail 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 your wholesale orders') and even names the fields returned (retailer, total, status, ship-by date). It is clearly a list operation distinct from a single-order fetch, though it never names the sibling faire_get_order to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides implied context ('Filter by status or by the date an order was placed to see what is new since your last check'), which hints at incremental polling. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative (e.g. use faire_get_order for a single order).

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