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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description is not the sole bearer of that burden. It does add useful behavior beyond annotations: the result is a paged collection and the underlying REST verb is GET /orders. It is silent on auth requirements, rate limits, and default page size.

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 tight sentences with the capability and filter scope front-loaded, followed by the return shape and REST mapping. Nothing is padded.

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 read-only filter-list tool with full schema coverage and an explicit 'paged collection' return note, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Remaining gaps (no output schema, no default limit / pagination semantics beyond what the schema states) are minor.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description groups the filters (keyword, email/id, statuses, coupon, date range), which aids orientation but adds no syntax or semantics 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 ('Search / list') and resource ('the store's orders'), enumerates the filter dimensions, and grounds it in the Ecwid REST endpoint (GET /orders). This is immediately distinguishable from the sibling ecwid_get_order, which fetches a single order.

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 description implies usage ('search / list ... with optional filters') and that all filters are optional, but never states when to prefer this over ecwid_get_order or how to drill into a result. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are given.

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