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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral details: requires a logged-in MCP session from `tronsave_login`, explains the `mcp-session-id` header requirement, clarifies that internal tools never accept API keys via arguments, and describes the two session types. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is concise enough.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: purpose, authentication, pagination, usage context, and relationship to sibling tool. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Complete for a paginated list tool with authentication.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (page, pageSize). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 due to full coverage.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: 'List paginated order history for the internal account linked to the API key, newest first.' Clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (order history), and pagination ordering. Distinguishes from sibling `tronsave_internal_order_details` for a single order.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks about past purchases, fulfillment, payouts, or delegates on their internal account.' Also notes it is read-only. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use, but the context is clear.

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