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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: the pagination envelope, which fields each entry carries, and the notable default that order items are included unless disabled. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, which is a minor gap for an open-world read.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then defaults, then return shape, then endpoint. Dense without padding; only the enumerated parenthetical "(sales orders, returns, credit notes ...)" is slightly loose.

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?

For a 21-parameter filter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (page, totalsCount, isLastPage, entries[] and entry fields) plus pagination and default-sort behavior. Pagination fields are named exactly as returned (isLastPage), so an agent can page correctly without guessing.

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 already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns more by stating the effective default ordering (sort_by=createdAt, sort_order=desc) and the payload-size consequence of add_order_items, neither of which is fully spelled out in the schema. It also clarifies that typeId 1 means sales order when reading results.

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 ("List orders") and broadens scope explicitly to sales orders, returns, credit notes, plus the backing endpoint GET /rest/orders, which implicitly separates it from the single-order get_order sibling. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get 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?

Useful operating hints are present — default sort is newest first, and add_order_items=false makes pages smaller — but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus plentymarkets_get_order or plentymarkets_list_order_statuses. Usage is implied by the filter inventory rather than stated.

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