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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior: filter combination semantics and the shape of each result row (a summary, not the full order). It does not state result caps or pagination limits beyond what the schema implies, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 and dense; the routing hints come immediately after the scope statement. The trailing 'GET /order-service/order-search' is transport noise and 'and more' in the field list is slightly imprecise, costing a point but not readability.

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 20-parameter, zero-required search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what a result row contains, how filters combine, how to resolve enum-like ids, and where to go for full detail. An agent can construct and follow up on a query from this alone.

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% across 20 params, so the baseline is 3. The description still contributes: the AND-combination rule for filters is a genuine semantic addition not expressed in the schema, and it clarifies that results are summary rows keyed by orderId rather than full orders.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and the exact resource families covered (sales orders, sales credits, purchase orders, purchase credits), so the agent knows precisely what this returns. It also names brightpearl_get_orders as the tool for full order detail, cleanly separating it from the sibling.

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?

States that all filters are optional and combine with AND, which tells the agent how to build a query. It explicitly routes the agent onward for the two most likely follow-ups: brightpearl_get_orders for the full order and brightpearl_list_order_types / brightpearl_list_order_statuses to resolve ids.

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