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 goes further by flagging that all amounts are in cents and that the underlying call is GET /v1/orders/. It still does not describe pagination semantics beyond what the schema's page/limit fields imply, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: identity plus field list, then units and filtering, then relationships and endpoint. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place given there is no output schema. No filler.

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 no output schema, the enumerated field list is the right compensating detail, and filtering, relationship embedding, units and endpoint are all covered. Pagination behavior across pages is only implied by the schema's page field, leaving a small gap for a tool with 7 parameters and nested `filter` objects.

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 the formal baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful meaning: the concrete list of embeddable relationships (customer, products, coupons, bill_address, ship_address, fulfillments, transactions, subscriptions) expands on the bare 'customer,orders' example in `with`, and the cents note contextualizes the monetary fields. It does not clarify the filters comparison operators beyond the schema.

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 orders") and enumerates the fields each order carries, which cleanly separates it from cratejoy_get_order and the other cratejoy_list_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what it receives without opening the schema.

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 gives filtering context ("Filter by payment status and placed-at range, or with `filters`") but never states when to prefer the dedicated placed_after/placed_before/financial_status params over the generic `filters` object, nor when to use this list tool at all versus lookups like cratejoy_get_order. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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