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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the required seller read access, the OAuth discovery endpoint and scope, and a privacy constraint that buyer contact details are withheld and live on the order page. The only weakness is that the auth requirement is restated verbatim twice rather than adding new detail such as pagination or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and short overall, but two sentences say essentially the same thing ("Requires seller read access" and "Requires sign-in with seller access"), which wastes space and slightly muddles the required-auth message.

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?

Covers purpose, auth requirements, scope, and the field set for a simple single-parameter list tool with an output schema already present. What remains unstated, such as ordering of results or pagination beyond the limit, is minor for this complexity level.

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?

There is one optional parameter (limit) with a fully documented range and default in the schema, so coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 ("List orders") scoped to "the signed-in seller", and names the returned fields. The seller scoping implicitly separates it from the buyer-oriented list_my_orders, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With closely related siblings like list_my_orders, bulk_export_orders, get_order_status, and seller_inbox_summarise, the agent gets no routing signal for choosing this list tool over those alternatives.

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