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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses ordering, AND-combination of filters, UTC date interpretation, and pagination via next_offset. The caveat that 'total is the size of the page, not of all orders' is exactly the kind of non-obvious trap that prevents misuse.

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?

Five tight clauses: purpose, filter semantics, timezone, pagination, response shape, endpoint. No filler, and the most important facts (scope, AND filters, paging) are front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fills the critical gaps: page size vs. total, next_offset usage, error_count meaning, and the response envelope keys. It stops short of explaining the distinction between created/retrieved_at/last_modified date families, which the agent must infer from parameter names 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: filters are conjunctive and all dates are read as UTC (the end_date/retrieved_at/last_modified schema entries do not repeat the UTC note). It also correctly frames offset as 'pass next_offset from the previous reply', reinforcing the schema's own hint.

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 marketplace orders of a project') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the underlying endpoint. It clearly separates this from get_order/ship_order style siblings by being a collection listing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides useful operational rules ('Filters combine with AND; dates are read as UTC') and pagination mechanics, which tell the agent how to call it. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over channable_get_order or channable_get_order_statistics, so selection guidance is only implied by the collection-vs-single shape.

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