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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: no automatic pagination, no retries, the full_page next-page signal, and concrete rate limits of 3/second per API user and 10/second site-wide. That is real added value beyond the structured fields, short only of error/failure 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by filtering, pagination and pacing. No wasted clauses, though the page-continuation sentence is worded a little awkwardly and could be tighter.

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 and four parameters, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned fields (status, amounts, line items) and the full_page pagination signal. It is close to complete; only the semantics of the page parameter and the shape of an empty result remain unstated.

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 50%: filter and sort are documented in the schema, while page and limit carry no descriptions there. The description lightly compensates by framing the call as "one page" and tying it to a 100-item ceiling, but it never explains page semantics or that limit caps orders returned, and "up to 100 line items" is slightly ambiguous against the schema's limit maximum of 100.

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 ("Read one page of order status, amounts and up to 100 line items") and pins the scope to a single page, which separates it from an unbounded search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling infoplus_get_order, so an agent must infer which to use for a single known order.

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 operational usage guidance for pagination ("A full_page result may have a following page; request the next page to check") and rate pacing, which is genuinely useful. However, it never names alternatives or states when-not to use it versus infoplus_get_order or the other infoplus_search_* tools, so the selection decision is only implied.

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