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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path (GET /inventory/pos) and confirms filtering/sorting, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with the endpoint last. 'Sort with sort' is slightly tautological but the whole thing is tight with 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?

A read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations; an agent has what it needs to call it correctly. Only the absence of output-format or pagination hints (beyond schema text) keeps it from a 5.

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%, including RQL syntax examples and pagination guidance, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely names rql and sort without adding semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 inbound purchase orders per customer'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like extensiv_list_orders or extensiv_list_receivers. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus extensiv_list_orders, extensiv_get_order, or the receiver tools. 'Filter with rql, sort with sort' is parameter instruction, not usage context.

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