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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context ('owned by a maker wallet', 'still need attention'), but it does not disclose behaviors like default limit behavior, sorting, or whether inFlight maps exactly to 'needs attention'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds information about scope or optional filtering.

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 simple list tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema are minimally adequate. However, the lack of output shape, limit semantics, and clearer inFlight meaning leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It vaguely maps 'owner' to 'maker wallet' and 'inFlight' to 'orders that still need attention', but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, and the inFlight mapping is ambiguous. This is only partial compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Peer Cash orders'), and scope ('owned by a maker wallet'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling list tools such as peer_cash_order or peer_pv_intent_list_owner.

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: call this to list orders for a given maker wallet, with an optional filter for orders needing attention. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related list/fetch tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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