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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the required OAuth scope (buyer:read) and the discovery endpoint. It does not cover ordering or pagination behavior, and the two auth sentences largely restate each other.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but 'Requires buyer read access' and 'Requires sign-in with buyer access' are redundant restatements of the same prerequisite taking up two of four sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and auth/scope requirements are spelled out. For a single-parameter read tool, the main remaining gap is whether/how results are ordered or paginated beyond the limit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1–50, default 20). The description adds no meaning beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource scoped to 'orders the signed-in buyer placed', which implicitly separates it from list_seller_orders and the bulk_* mutations. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It states prerequisites (buyer read access, sign-in) but never says when to choose this over list_seller_orders, get_order_status, or bulk_export_orders. Usage is only implied by the word 'my', leaving an agent to infer the buyer-vs-seller split.

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