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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real context: results are 'private' and limited to the connected payer wallet's own history. However, it says nothing about the authorization object requirement (a signed message), pagination behavior, or rate/visibility limits, which matters given the tool accepts a complex signed authorization parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficient and well-structured. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a signed-authorization parameter, but that under-specification is captured under contextual completeness rather than penalized here.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a nested authorization object, and a 0%-described schema, so the description carries a heavy disclosure burden. It offers only one sentence with no explanation of the auth flow, cursor-based pagination, or parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the invocation prerequisites are severely under-documented.

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% across 5 parameters, including a large nested authorization object, so the schema provides no semantic help. The description only weakly implies the meaning of payer ('connected payer wallet') and says nothing about limit, cursor, authorization, or paymentIdentifier. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (the payer wallet's Daski order history), which is far clearer than a tautology. It scopes the operation to the 'connected payer wallet', but it doesn't name or contrast itself with the many sibling list/get tools (e.g. daski_get_order_status, daski_list_assets), so an agent must infer the distinction. Clear purpose, lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative tool. The phrase 'connected payer wallet's private' weakly implies this only returns the caller's own orders, but no condition selects it over siblings like daski_get_order_status. Essentially no usage guidance.

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