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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the login requirement, that addresses and payment data are deliberately excluded, and that tracking info only appears once the order has shipped.

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 dense paragraph where each clause carries new information: returned fields, the 'order' filter, the read-only scope, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing is repeated or padded, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 must describe returns, and it does so concretely (fields plus conditional shipping tracking). It also covers the auth prerequisite and the data-exclusion boundary, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 three parameters (limit, order, country) are already documented in the schema, including the 'order' semantics the description restates. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 ('Los últimos pedidos del cliente') and enumerates exactly what is returned: número, fecha, estado, juegos, total y seguimiento del envío. The conditional behavior with the 'order' parameter is spelled out, distinguishing it from siblings like prepared_order_status and my_account without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it explains that passing 'order' returns just that one order, and that the customer must be logged in. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for related needs (e.g., prepared_order_status for in-prep orders), so sibling routing is left partly to inference.

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