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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the 'newest first' ordering behavior and the portfolio-view framing, but does not disclose pagination behavior or default return scope beyond what the schema's limit parameter already says.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, states the filtering axes, and adds ordering in four words. No filler or repetition of the title/schema.

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 an optional-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description plus annotations are sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. It covers scope, filters, ordering, and safety profile; no critical selection or invocation information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces wallet/status/type as filters and omits limit, but adds no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('Epsilon orders'), and a clear portfolio scope with filtering dimensions (maker wallet, status, type) and ordering (newest first). This makes it easy to distinguish from singular/status-focused sibling tools like get_order_status or get_orderbook.

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 phrase 'the portfolio view' gives clear context for when this listing tool fits, and the filter dimensions suggest it is for broad order searches rather than single-order lookup. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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