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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further: exact sort order (oldest first), owner-scoped result set, and the auth behavior (unauthenticated calls prompt a sign-in on printdash.io). That auth precondition is behavioral context 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 scope ("For a Team owner") and free of filler. The trailing enumeration of return fields partially duplicates the output schema, which is the one bit of 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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, and the description still adds the pieces those cannot carry: sort order, ownership scoping, and the sign-in requirement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed; only the ownership condition acts as an implicit filter.

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+resource (list held orders awaiting approval) and a precise scope: only Teams the caller owns. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from list_orders without opening either 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?

"For a Team owner" plus "an account that owns no Team is told only an owner approves" gives a clear use condition and an explicit non-applicable case. It never names alternatives such as list_orders or approve_order, so routing across siblings is left to inference.

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