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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reveals the underlying read API path and the no-hash listing behavior, but says nothing about pagination semantics for `cursor`, result ordering, or listing size limits beyond the schema default.

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 compact sentences, with the mode-switching rule front-loaded and no filler. The opening clause is slightly awkward in phrasing but carries real content about the order's fields.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries a reasonable share of the load by describing the shape of an order (parties, budget, milestones, status), which substitutes partly for a return schema. Pagination via cursor remains unexplained, a minor gap for a listing endpoint.

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 80%, so the schema already documents hash, limit, party and status. The description reinforces the hash-optional listing mode and that party/status are listing filters, but adds no meaning for `cursor`, the one undocumented parameter, and gives no format hints for the hash.

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 names the resource (service order of the circle's marketplace), enumerates what it carries (parties, budget, milestones, status), and discloses the backing endpoint GET /orders/{hash}. It clearly conveys the dual get-by-hash / list behavior, though the opening noun phrase reads more like a resource label than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states the two modes: supply a hash to read one order, omit it to list, and use `party` and `status` to narrow the listing. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when to prefer a sibling like x207_search_listings, leaving that routing to inference.

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