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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results default to newest-first — plus a note on what each order carries (statuses, totals, links), but says nothing about pagination limits or result caps. Modest, correct addition beyond structured data.

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 dense, well front-loaded sentences: what it lists and default ordering first, then filterable dimensions. The trailing "GET /orders" is arguably filler, but the rest earns its space.

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?

With 12 optional params but a fully described schema and no output schema, the description fills the important gap by naming the fields each order returns (payment status, fulfillment status, totals, links) and the default ordering. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums and UUID formats. The description only summarizes the filter surface at a high level and omits several parameters (page, per_page, sort, include, creator_group_id), so it adds no semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("List the orders of your Aryeo company") and scopes the result set to the caller's company, which distinguishes it from aryeo_get_order and from the other list_* siblings. A reader knows immediately this is a paged, filterable order collection.

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 filter sentence makes the intended use cases concrete: browse newest-first, or narrow by search text, statuses, appointment window, tags, or assigned users. It never names an explicit alternative (e.g. aryeo_get_order for a single order) or states when-not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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