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. The description adds only the raw endpoint "GET /orders" and a field list, with no information about pagination behavior, default result size, or that unknown filter fields are silently ignored (a trap documented only in the schema).

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Slightly under-weight for the tool's complexity but nothing is wasted.

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, listing the returned fields (status, payment status, total, dates, contact, delivery type, invoice number) is genuinely useful for shaping follow-up calls. However, for an 8-parameter list tool with a nested filters object, the description says nothing about pagination, sorting defaults, or filter behavior, leaving the schema to carry those burdens.

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%, with filters, sort_by/sort_dir, status, payment_status and contact_id all documented including operator syntax and the silent-ignore caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond listing some of the same fields, so the schema does all the work and 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 sales orders") and enumerates the record fields returned, which lets an agent infer it differs from farmbrite_get_order (single order) and farmbrite_create_order/update_order. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of the single-order sibling farmbrite_get_order, and no note about paging through results before narrowing with filters. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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