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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the required OAuth grant and minimal scope, what is deliberately excluded from the projection (address/recipient/contact/notes), that nothing is executed, and the exact failure modes (GRANT_REQUIRED, PERMISSION_REQUIRED with re-connect). That is precisely the extra behavioral layer the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then bulleted by parameter mode, so an agent can scan to the case it needs. It is dense and telegraphic in places (stacked parentheticals, slash-separated fields), but no line is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still names the projected fields and the as_of reply field. Combined with the error codes, grant requirements, and cross-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret failures.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default list behavior and ordering, that payment_rail means funds semantics and amounts are read-only, and that changed_since returns an as_of for the next poll. The 'full' vs 'updated_since' interaction is only partly explained in the prose, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Reads YOUR OWN orders', minimal projection) and explicitly contrasts with the seller-side tool ('Seller-side orders not here (use webaz_get_agent_order)'). An agent can distinguish this from webaz_order_draft, webaz_place_order, or webaz_buyer_action_request without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives explicit branching: order_id present → single order with tracking; omitted → recent-first list; changed_since → incremental polling with as_of for the next check. It also routes cancel/return to webaz_buyer_action_request (owner approval) and disputes to the owner, so alternatives are named with the conditions that select them.

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