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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value: page-at-a-time retrieval, the 'visible' scope (permission-filtered results), omitted line items, and the required sales_orders:read scope. It does not explain paging bounds or how to detect the last page, which are the remaining unknowns.

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, each doing distinct work: what is returned, how to narrow, and what is excluded/required. Front-loaded with the resource and the payload summary.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, exclusions, auth scope, and safety profile. The gaps are pagination limits and the include_total/q parameters, which matter for correct invocation.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the load and only partially does so: it names customer, status, warehouse (location_id) and issue date filters. It never mentions q, page, limit, or the non-obvious include_total flag, leaving four parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read one visible sales-order page') and immediately characterizes the payload ('status, amount and invoiced/packed/shipped progress'). The 'Line items are omitted' clause plus the filter list cleanly separates it from siblings like salesbinder_list_invoices and would-be detail tools.

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?

'Search or filter by customer, status, warehouse or issue date' tells the agent exactly which selection modes exist, and 'no fulfillment changes' rules out using it as a mutation path. It stops short of explicitly routing to a sibling when the caller needs line items or full order detail.

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