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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first and arrive via POST /v3/list_orders, which matters because an agent might otherwise assume a GET-style filter tool. It does not discuss pagination limits or cancellation defaults, but those live 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 sentences, zero waste. The resource and sort order come first, filter axes second, and the endpoint reference is tucked at the end where it does not obstruct scanning.

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 nine-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming what is returned (status, totals, dates) and the sort order. Pagination mechanics and the show_cancelled default are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap for an agent iterating pages.

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 earns a point above baseline by clarifying the ambiguous order_pos parameter, spelling out that it holds the caller's own PO numbers from systems like Shopify or Squarespace, and by framing date_from/date_to as a paired range.

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 submitted print orders) plus ordering and returned fields (status, totals, dates), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like finerworks_list_pending_orders or finerworks_get_order, leaving the read-scope boundary implicit.

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 enumeration of filter axes (free text, status, order ids, POs, date range) implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus finerworks_list_pending_orders or finerworks_get_order for a single order. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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