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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the auth requirement (Partner Billing Key) and discloses the returned fields (order id, items with status and tracking, totals, addresses) plus the underlying endpoint. It omits pagination behavior, which the schema partially covers.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and search keys first, then return values, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing 'GET /ordersearch' endpoint note is the least load-bearing element.

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 9-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, what it returns, and what credentials it needs. The notable gap is not stating whether at least one filter is required or what an unfiltered call does, which matters given no required parameters.

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%, so every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, including page/page_size semantics. The description's enumeration mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax, precedence, or combination rules (e.g. whether filters are ANDed), so 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 (search Gooten orders) and enumerates the exact search keys, which effectively separates it from gooten_get_order. It also summarizes the result shape. It never names a sibling or explicitly says when to prefer get_order instead, so it stops 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?

The list of searchable fields implies the usage (look up orders when you don't know the order id), and the Partner Billing Key requirement is stated. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if you supply no filters, and no routing to alternatives such as gooten_get_order.

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