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

Annotations provide no read-only or behavioral hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses ordering, returned fields, totals per currency, and filtering, but it does not mention pagination, empty results, access prerequisites, or the meaning of the trailing 'Free.'

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 core description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence that communicates ordering, output, totals, and filters. The trailing 'Free.' is ambiguous and does not clearly contribute, but overall the description is compact and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the returned fields and summarizing behavior. It is adequately complete for a simple filtered list tool, though it leaves pagination and exact result shape to be inferred.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description restates that filtering is by status, client, and requested-date range, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('List work orders'), the sort order, the fields returned, and the available filters, making the tool's purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like work_order_get or work_orders_report, so it stops short of the top score.

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 the list/filter wording but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as work_order_get or work_orders_report. There are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named sibling tools.

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