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

Adds behavioral detail well beyond the readOnlyHint: the 35-day maximum range, a 500-per-page cap, the requirement to reuse identical parameters when paging, and an explicit warning that the operation is read-only despite using POST. The POST caveat reinforces rather than contradicts the annotation.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary lookup modes and followed by pagination and the POST/read-only clarification. No filler or repetition.

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, and the description compensates by explaining what comes back (order data and/or scheduling info, plus the after_tag cursor) and how to consume it. For a 6-parameter search tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 schema carries the baseline. The description still contributes non-schema constraints: the 35-day ceiling on dateRange, the 500-item page size tying to maxItems, and representative status values beyond the enum list.

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 ('Find orders') with the two supported lookup modes (date range, orderNo/id list) and the optional status filter. It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings, though it never names the closest read siblings (get_orders, get_routes) to sharpen 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?

Gives concrete usage context: a hard 35-day window for date ranges, lookup-by-list as the alternative, optional status narrowing, and the rule for paging ('pass the returned after_tag with the SAME other parameters'). No explicit when-not or sibling routing guidance is offered.

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