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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds a behavioral constraint not present in structured data — that at least one filter parameter is mandatory despite the schema showing zero required parameters — which prevents a runtime error. It omits pagination, result limits, and rate-limit behavior.

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: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second gives the filtering rule and endpoint. Zero waste and front-loaded, with no repeated schema content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does useful work by enumerating what an order returns (rent, fees, services, adjustments, taxes, commission, total). For a four-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to complete; only pagination/limit behavior is unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (lead_uid, guest_uid, property_uid, updated_since) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same filter dimensions without adding format, syntax, or exclusivity rules, so the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (orders), then defines what an order actually is — 'the money side of a booking' with its component fields. That definitional framing helps an agent distinguish orders from leads/properties/guests. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it should be preferred over, 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 description gives the filter dimensions and the hard rule that at least one is required, which implies the contexts in which the tool is usable. However, it names no alternative tool or condition for choosing between this and search_leads, calculate_quote, or the other list tools, so when-to-use vs alternatives is only implied.

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