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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no default sort or result cap, no statement of what an empty filter set returns, and no note on filter combination semantics.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource stated first and filters second, so it is front-loaded and waste-free. The terseness tips into under-specification rather than excess, but structurally it is clean.

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 and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition should explain filter semantics and the shape of results. It leaves both entirely undocumented, so an agent must guess at valid status values and search behavior before calling.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it merely restates the three parameter names without adding meaning. It does not explain what values 'status' accepts, whether 'search' matches order number or customer name, or what format 'customer_id' takes.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List sales orders"), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_sales_order, list_purchase_orders, or list_returns, but the resource name alone is enough to identify it.

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 second sentence only names the available filters; it never says when to use this list tool versus get_sales_order for a single record or how it relates to list_purchase_orders/list_returns. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no guidance on combining filters.

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