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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational constraints: a hard cap of 50 ids, the open-orders-only restriction, that 'include' trims optional sections, and the underlying POST endpoint. It stops short of describing pagination or response size 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?

Two tight sentences with the payload contents front-loaded, followed by the 'include' optimization and the open-order constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 enumeration of returned sections (shipping, customer, totals, items, folders, notes, identifiers, extended properties, bin racks) usefully tells the agent what it gets back, and the open-order and 50-id limits are stated. Only a note on pagination or response size is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that 'include' defaults to all optional parts and that order_ids are GUIDs from linnworks_list_open_orders. The description only restates the 50-id cap and the partial-load behavior, adding no new syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch full details of open orders by ids) and enumerates exactly what comes back: general info, shipping, customer, totals, items, folders, notes, identifiers, extended properties, bin racks. The phrase 'Only works for open orders' differentiates it from the sibling linnworks_get_order, though that sibling is never named.

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 'Only works for open orders' constraint plus the hint to pass 'include' for partial loads gives implied usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over linnworks_get_order or linnworks_list_open_orders, and no exclusions or prerequisites are spelled out beyond the open-order restriction.

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