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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a members-only access requirement, that buyer contact is sensitive, and that it never leaks into webhooks — useful constraints beyond structured fields.

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 verb and scope, which is good, but the body is a single dense run-on sentence carrying a full return-field enumeration. The field list earns some place since there is no output schema, yet the structure is a wall of text rather than scannable.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the sensitive buyer contact, plus the members-only constraint. That is close to complete for a list tool; pagination/default behavior is left to the schema's limit description.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, status, projectId, oversoldOnly) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the status enum values but adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (paid orders reported by the storefront for one rikma), so the agent knows it retrieves order records. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling getRikmaOrderTool, leaving the list-vs-get choice to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: 'for one rikma' scopes it to a project and 'Members only' states an access prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no routing to getRikmaOrderTool or updateRikmaOrderStatusTool for adjacent tasks.

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