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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that it runs through local WordPress authentication and needs no WooCommerce REST API keys. It stops short of describing return shape, pagination behavior, or how the passthrough filters object affects the result.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about mirroring the woocommerce-mcp-server method and authentication adds some value but is largely implementation detail an agent doesn't need to select or call the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to convey what a report response looks like, and it does not — no mention of totals, date bucketing, or pagination metadata. For a report tool with 7 parameters including a passthrough filters object, the description leaves the caller to discover the response and filter semantics empirically.

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%, with every parameter — including the critical site_id warning not to use a URL or post ID — documented inline. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies. The free-form `filters` object with additionalProperties=true is only described as 'report filters to pass through,' which the schema already says.

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: 'Retrieves WooCommerce orders reports.' An agent can tell it returns aggregated order report data rather than raw orders. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent report siblings such as wc_get_sales_report or wc_get_products_report, so the boundary between report types is left 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says when to choose this report over wc_get_orders or the other wc_get_*_report siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites appear in the description. The only precondition (call list_sites first for site_id) lives in the schema, not the description.

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