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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it mentions pagination with a default of 20 orders per page, status filtering, and the exclusion of orders without delivery slots when date filters are applied. These are not captured in the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, increasing transparency.

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 description contains a duplicated 'Guidance:' section that repeats the first sentence and is truncated ('...C...'). This redundancy and unfinished fragment makes the text less concise and structurally messy, detracting from its clarity.

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 list-orders tool, the description covers the essential context: the resource type, pagination default, status constraints, and the behavior of date filters (including delivery-slot exclusion). It is not exhaustive (e.g., no output schema), but it provides sufficient operational context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but useful clarification: the default page size (20) is not stated in the per_page parameter description, and the description reinforces the status filter behavior. This extra context raises the score slightly.

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 states the tool's verb and resource: 'Returns a list of the orders that belong to the specified shop.' This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like shop_get_order (singular retrieval) and other shop_list_* tools, making the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and its filtering capabilities, but it does not explicitly say when to use it compared to alternatives such as shop_get_order or other list tools. An agent can infer usage from the purpose, but there is no direct comparative guidance.

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