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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the backing endpoint (POST /v1/orders:list) and the fields returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page_size/page_token existing, nor about result caps or ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the filters. The trailing API-endpoint note is minor metadata but takes little space and aids traceability.

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 description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives just 'status and amounts'. It also omits pagination guidance for a 7-parameter paged list tool, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that must page through results.

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 86%, so the schema already documents company_id, page_size, page_token, business_ids, and the RFC 3339 timestamps. The description only restates the status and update-time filters at a high level, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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') and clarifies the domain term by equating orders with invoices, plus names the fields surfaced (status, amounts). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling moego_get_order (single-order fetch), but the list/singular split is implied by the name.

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?

'Filter by status or last update time' implies the retrieval scenarios but never states when to choose this over moego_get_order or moego_list_payments, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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