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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile. Beyond that the description discloses meaningful traits: default ordering (most recent first), pagination, one order with multiple items appearing as multiple rows, and the pre-aggregation limitation for Amazon/ML. However, it does not describe the response envelope or the paging.hasMore/nextOffset mechanics it relies on.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: core behavior, then row granularity, then filters, then limitation, then the sibling redirect. No filler sentences; each clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent must know: what a row represents (order-item, not order), ordering, pagination, marketplace gaps, and where to go for totals. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including enums and defaults. The description only echoes the filter set (marketplace, status, product search) and the default ordering, adding little syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

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 ("Lista pedidos INDIVIDUAIS") plus the fields returned (produto, quantidade, venda, comissão, status, referenciador, anunciante). The word INDIVIDUAIS and the note that pre-aggregated marketplaces are excluded clearly separate it from aggregation siblings like painel_get_sales_summary.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for totals ("Para totais, use painel_get_sales_summary") and adds a strong exclusion ("não some páginas"). It also states when the tool does not apply (Amazon and Mercado Livre have no individual orders), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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