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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the vendor cost of 1 API credit and the underlying POST /v2/Shipments/Summaries call, which matter for budgeting on a read-only tool that uses POST.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the scope and appends cost and endpoint. No filler, though the phrasing 'the orders of their account' is slightly redundant with the preceding clause.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, cost and endpoint adequately. It could have noted the default result size or the shape of a shipment summary, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single 'count' parameter is fully documented with range and default, so the schema does the work. The description's only nod to parameters is the vendor-side name 'numRecentOrders', which adds little 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 ('most recent orders') and narrows scope precisely to 'the signed-in INTERNET user (user type INET; the orders of their account)', which clearly separates it from cxt_get_order or cxt_search_shipments.

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 scoping to the signed-in INET user implies when this is appropriate, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over siblings like cxt_search_shipments or cxt_get_order, nor does it state exclusions.

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