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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is partially known. The description adds 'Read-only' (repeating the annotation) and the notion of a summary, but does not disclose how missing month is handled, what the summary contains (counts, revenue, statuses), or any other behavioral traits. No contradiction, but little novel disclosure.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key filtering options and the read-only guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. The only notable gap is the unspecified behavior when no month is provided (e.g., current month vs. all months), but that is a minor ambiguity rather than a blocking omission.

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%, with the schema already documenting 'YYYY-MM' and 'must be your own'. The description merely restates the existence of optional filters without adding format, constraints, or default behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Returns a monthly summary of orders.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orders (likely more granular) and get_daily_menu by the temporal aggregation level.

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?

The description implies usage through 'monthly summary' and optional filters, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like get_orders or states when to prefer this tool. There is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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