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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered and there is no contradiction. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond the annotations and schema – no default page size, pagination behavior, or ordering of results – so it lands at the baseline.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the filtering capability is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and annotation-covered safety, the description is largely sufficient. It is slightly thin for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema: it never mentions pagination defaults or the shape of the returned list, though 'List orders' implies a collection.

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 100%, with every parameter documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter list mirrors the schema and adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail (e.g. date window semantics) beyond what is already structured.

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 enumerates the filter dimensions (customer, product, subscription, status, date window), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular polar_get_order sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description lists what can be filtered but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as polar_get_order for a single order. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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