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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the auth requirement and the 'recent' scope, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or return format details, which would provide additional behavioral clarity.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the auth prerequisite. It contains no filler, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters fully described in the schema and safety annotations provided, the description is largely complete. However, it omits details about the default limit behavior (though schema provides the default) and what fields the returned orders include, leaving room for improvement.

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 fully covers both parameters (limit and status) with descriptions and enum values, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It only mentions the optional status filter, which is already present in 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists recent orders with an optional status filter, using a specific verb-resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_order, get_order, and list_standing_orders.

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 implies usage by naming the operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_order for a single order or list_standing_orders for recurring orders. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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