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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the OAuth scope requirement, the newest-first ordering, and the returned fields. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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: it leads with read-only and OAuth scope, then states the data scope, ordering, and output fields. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional limit parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential details: auth scope, resource scope, ordering, and returned fields. Remaining details like bounds are already present in the schema.

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 100% for the single optional 'limit' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource and output: 'the signed-in user's sponsorship orders, newest first, with status, total and tree ids.' It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the plural 'orders' and user scoping distinguish it from siblings like get_order.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: the current signed-in user's sponsorship orders, and notes the required OAuth scope. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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