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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that results are 'summary details' rather than full records, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema notes.

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 short sentences that lead with the action and searchable fields, then the return shape and usage. Efficient overall, though the second sentence is mildly redundant with the first.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return contents, the searchable dimensions, and the empty-query default (via schema), while annotations carry the safety profile. Only the absence of any reference to sibling alternatives leaves a small gap.

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%, with the query parameter spelling out the searchable fields and the empty-case listing behavior, and status enumerating every accepted value. The description's mention of 'PO number, supplier name, or status' merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax or matching semantics.

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 (search) and resource (purchase orders) and identifies the searchable fields plus the return shape ('summary details'). Implies it differs from get_purchase_order_details by returning only summaries, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use this to find recent POs or look up specific ones' gives a use context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to the obvious alternative get_purchase_order_details for full PO data. Usage is implied, not delineated.

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