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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the default status filter silently excludes archived orders and the default financial_status silently drops refunded/voided orders, with the "pass any" workaround for date-range totals. Pagination handling is also mentioned. Missing only auth/rate-limit context and a note on result ordering or page-size limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The payload summary comes first, filters second, pagination and endpoint last — a clean front-loaded structure.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is largely complete: it summarizes return fields (compensating for the missing output schema) and flags the two hidden default filters. It stops short of explaining result ordering, total/pagination metadata, or that filters combine as AND.

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 all twelve parameters are already documented with formats, defaults and bounds; baseline is 3. The description only restates filter categories and the page/next_page hint, adding little beyond the schema.

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") and previews the returned payload (line items, customer, totals, payment and fulfillment status), which distinguishes it from sapo_get_order (single order) and sapo_count_orders (counts). It never names the siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verbs alone.

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?

"Filter by status, tag, customer or dates" implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no pointer to sapo_get_order for single-record lookups or sapo_count_orders for totals. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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