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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it identifies the underlying Raisely API endpoint (GET /orders) and the return envelope shape ({ data:[...], pagination }).

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 description is very concise and front-loaded: resource name, scope clarification, endpoint, filtering note, and return shape are all stated in a few efficient fragments with no wasted text.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint and return envelope, and the input schema fully covers pagination and filtering parameters. It omits auth or rate-limit details, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and the params filter object thoroughly. The description only restates that filtering is done through `params`, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List orders') and clarifies that orders are ticket/product purchases, which helps distinguish them from sibling donation tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as raisely_list_donations or raisely_list_subscriptions.

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 says to filter via `params`, but that is invocation guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It gives no explicit context for choosing this tool over sibling list tools or any exclusions.

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