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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to the underlying API mapping (GET /orders/created) and the notion that results can be enriched. It says nothing about pagination, maximum range, response size, or what happens when the include flags are false.

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 core filtering behavior front-loaded and no wasted prose. The trailing endpoint reference is mildly incidental but cheap and useful for API grounding.

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?

Six parameters with one-third coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint. The description leaves the agent guessing about four boolean flags, pagination, and result shape, which is more than a minimal definition should omit for a list endpoint.

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 only 33% – from_date/to_date are documented, but the four include_* booleans are not. The phrase 'optionally with stops and items' gestures at them without mapping to specific flags or clarifying the difference between include_order_items and include_order_lines, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 orders') plus the scoping filter ('created between two dates') and the optional expansion via stops/items. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like locate2u_search_orders, locate2u_find_order, or locate2u_get_order, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over search_orders, find_order, get_order, or list_scheduled_stops, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is 'optionally with stops and items', which describes output shape rather than selection criteria.

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