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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 3-month date-range ceiling, the fact that non-exact matching is silently scoped to the last 3 months, and the backing endpoint. It does not describe pagination/output shape.

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 plus the endpoint path; the core purpose and the searchable-field list are front-loaded. The trailing POST path is mildly extraneous but consistent with API-reference style and costs little.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the returned result shape or that responses are paged (the schema hints at next_page). Given 8 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly, with the return-format gap being the main omission.

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%, including enum values and defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the searchable fields and the date-range constraint, adding little beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (search processed/despatched orders) and enumerates the searchable fields, so an agent can see it is distinct from open-order or inventory tools. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but '(despatched)' disambiguates from the open-order tools.

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?

Gives a concrete constraint — date range at most 3 months, and non-exact searches cover only the last 3 months — which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over find_order_by_number, find_orders_by_reference, or list_open_orders, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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