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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds genuinely behavioral context: results exclude line items, status ORDER_LOCKED means committed, and unfiltered collections are truncated at 120,000 rows before other filters apply. It stops short of describing pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, so not a full 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the alternative, then the performance warning. The field enumeration is long but each field is informative; only marginal trimming is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields so the agent knows the shape. Combined with the line-items cross-reference and the truncation warning, the definition is nearly complete; the only gap is explicit guidance on how to page beyond the 1,000-row limit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining why updated_since matters (the 120,000-row pre-filter cut) and by decoding an enum value (ORDER_LOCKED = committed), which the schema does not state.

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 orders') and immediately scopes it as 'without their line items', enumerating the returned fields (orderId, type, status, dates, facilities, reference, total). This cleanly separates it from the sibling finale_get_order, which retrieves items.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Get the items with finale_get_order' names the alternative, and 'For a large order history always pass updated_since' gives a concrete when-to-use condition with the reason (120,000-row cut). Both the alternative and the triggering condition are stated, not inferred.

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