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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned fields and the optional state filter. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then specifies return fields and an optional filter, and ends with concrete use case examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 list tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and full schema descriptions, the description covers return fields and filtering adequately. It does not mention pagination details (default limit of 20) or error handling, but these are covered in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the state filter and adds meaning by listing the returned fields (name, customer, amount_total, state, date_order), which are not in the schema. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Odoo sales orders / quotations (sale.order)'. It specifies the returned fields (name, customer, amount_total, etc.) and lists example use cases like 'recent sales orders' or 'open quotations', distinguishing it from sibling tools like odoo_list_invoices and odoo_list_crm_leads.

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 provides explicit use case examples: 'Use for "recent sales orders" or "open quotations".' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context suffices.

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