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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial traits beyond that: cursor-based pagination, the limit default of 50 and cap of 250, the response keys to read (next_cursor/previous_cursor), and the hard constraint that cursor requests accept ONLY limit. That cross-parameter behavioral rule is exactly the kind of non-obvious detail the description should carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, followed by pagination mechanics and the critical cursor caveat. The REST endpoint line is short and informative rather than filler.

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 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return shape ({ orders }), naming the pagination fields, and disclosing the cursor limitation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by grouping the filter families, restating the limit default/max, and explicitly documenting the cursor-plus-limit cross-parameter interaction. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema for the date and id filters.

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") plus the full scope of what can be filtered, which cleanly separates it from recharge_get_order (single order) and recharge_list_charges (different resource). The endpoint note ("Recharge REST: GET /orders") further pins the identity.

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 operational guidance on how to page correctly and warns to omit all filters when using a cursor, which is the main way to misuse this tool. It does not, however, explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like recharge_list_charges or recharge_get_order, so it stops short of a 5.

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