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 job is lighter. It adds the panel-scoped nature of the result set and that each entry carries an id and a name, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether disabled statuses are included.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the API endpoint trailing as supporting detail. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the payload contents (ids and names), which is what an agent needs to chain into status-setting calls. Minor gap: no note on whether the list is complete or filtered.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs.

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 the order statuses') plus scope ('configured in the panel') and the returned fields (ids and names). It is clearly distinguishable from the one sibling that mutates status (idosell_set_order_status) by verb alone, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to use before calling idosell_set_order_status, but the description never says when to use it or points at that sibling. For a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable but leaves the workflow connection implicit.

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