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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the authentication model in detail: which key is required, the two supported modes, the `Authorization: ApiKey <key>` header form, and the important constraint that keys must never be passed as tool arguments because the server forwards them. It also states result ordering (newest first).

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, auth constraints follow, then usage and routing. Every sentence carries non-redundant information, and no schema or annotation content is merely repeated.

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 two-parameter paginated list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, ordering, pagination, auth prerequisites, error-avoidance guidance, and which sibling to use instead or in tandem. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 100% and both parameters (page, pageSize) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the result ordering ('newest first'), which is not a parameter-level detail and is not restated per-parameter.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (List), resource (order history), scope (internal account linked to the API key), ordering (newest first), and pagination shape. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by naming `tronsave_list_orders` as the wallet-signature path.

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 states an explicit use case ('past purchases, fulfillment, payouts, or delegates on their internal account'), names the alternative route (`tronsave_list_orders` with `isOnlyMyOrder`), and points to the companion tool `tronsave_internal_order_details` for single-order lookups.

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