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 only real contribution is the endpoint mapping. It says nothing about default sort order, pagination behavior, whether all statuses are returned by default, or result shape — meaningful gaps for a list tool with no output schema.

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 no filler, and the identity of the tool is front-loaded. The economy is good, though the second sentence carries almost no decision-relevant information.

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 nine optional filters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about default behavior and return contents. It is far too thin for a listing tool whose filtering semantics matter to callers.

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%, and the schema documents all nine parameters including enums for sort_by/order_by and format patterns for dates, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond that, such as how search interacts with the date filters.

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 sales orders') and pins it to the underlying endpoint (GET /finance/orders), so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not differentiate from sibling list tools such as kledo_list_invoices or kledo_list_quotes, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other listing or reporting siblings, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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