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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: order lines are omitted unless include_details is true, they make replies large, and card tokens are never returned. Auth and rate limits are not covered, keeping it from a top score.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by sorting guidance, filter semantics, order-line behavior, and privacy details. Despite covering many parameters, it is dense but not wasteful, and every sentence contributes operational context.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the critical reply limitations around omitted order lines and non-returned card tokens, while the schema documents pagination and filter details. It does not describe the full response shape or permissions, but it is adequate for a rich, annotated list tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds practical meaning: a sort recipe for newest-first results, status examples, customer_name contains semantics, rep_group_status being Rep Group only, and date filter roles. It does not explain every parameter in detail, but it complements the schema usefully.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Search,' and resource, 'wholesale orders,' and explicitly distinguishes this tool from markettime_list_order_details for order-line retrieval. It also names the underlying endpoint, so an agent can identify the resource and its scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance for sorting newest-first and names markettime_list_order_details as the alternative for order lines. It does not exhaustively state when not to use this tool versus other list tools, but the key routing condition for line details is explicit.

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