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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the meaningful 'give at least one' constraint and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about return size, batching behavior, or what happens when an id does not exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the disambiguation. The trailing raw endpoint is marginal but takes almost no space.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, alternative, and the key input constraint. Remaining gaps (batch limits beyond the schema's maxItems, empty-result behavior) are small.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not express: no parameters are marked required and there is no anyOf, so 'give at least one' is genuinely new information about the id/serial-number relationship.

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 ('Get orders') and names the two keying options (order ids or serial numbers), which cleanly separates it from the filter-based sibling. An agent can distinguish this from idosell_search_orders without reading either schema.

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 filtering use cases to idosell_search_orders, which is the main ambiguity among siblings. It does not, however, say when this tool is preferable over that one beyond the filtering split, nor mention any prerequisites.

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