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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the filter semantics (creation date vs last-change date), which is useful, but it omits anything about pagination behavior (current_item / next_item paging) or result-size limits.

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 what the tool does and what it returns, followed by filters and endpoint. No filler; only minor tightening would improve it.

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 14-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and filters but leaves out pagination mechanics and total/result-count behavior, which an agent needs to page correctly. It partially compensates by listing the response fields.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates a subset of filters (branch, customer, status, creation date, last change from/to) but says nothing about order_by, page_size, include_payment, include_order_delivery or sale_channel_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List sales orders') with the returned field set and the filterable dimensions enumerated, plus the backing endpoint GET /orders. It is clearly a bulk-list operation versus the kiotviet_get_order / kiotviet_get_order_by_code siblings, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Filter options imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g. use kiotviet_get_order_by_code for a single known order, or kiotviet_list_invoices for invoices). The agent must infer the split from the 'List' vs 'Get' naming.

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