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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are paginated via next_page and lists the return fields, but it doesn't disclose default page size, sort defaults, or result caps beyond what the schema says.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose first, followed by filters and pagination. No wasted words and everything is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies what the structured fields don't: the shape of returned records and the paging mechanism. Only minor gaps remain, such as sort defaults and the relationship to related order tools.

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 already documents all 11 parameters including defaults, patterns, and enums. The description only echoes the filter categories and the next_page paging convention, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the orders generated by subscriptions') and enumerates the returned fields (name, subscriber, status, totals), which clearly separates it from the singular recurpay_get_order. It is clear without explicitly naming the sibling, so it lands just 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 filter list ('by order name, subscriber email, subscription and dates') implies usage contexts, but the description never says when to prefer this over recurpay_get_order or how results relate to recurpay_list_order_subscriptions. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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