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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the returned-field set and the underlying endpoint (GET /sales-orders), but says nothing about result size, pagination traversal, permissions, or rate limits beyond what the schema implies.

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 sentences that lead with purpose then filters, with no filler. The trailing 'GET /sales-orders' fragment is minor and slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall the text is tight and 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 14 optional params and no output schema, the description usefully names the fields returned and the filtering surface, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. It still omits the pagination loop (page/next_page) and the fact that all filters are optional, but those are covered by the schema.

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 each of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's filter enumeration ('status, channel, contact, marketplace order id, id range and created/updated dates') is largely a restatement of schema fields rather than added semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the marketplace/store orders that eDesk holds') with the returned fields spelled out (status, items, amounts, addresses, tracking codes, linked ticket id). This clearly separates it from the singular edesk_get_sales_order and from the other edesk_list_* tools.

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 says what can be filtered but never says when to choose this tool over edesk_get_sales_order (known id) or how it relates to edesk_list_tickets. No prerequisites, pagination workflow, or exclusions are stated — the filter list is parameter detail more than usage guidance.

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