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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (author id, date, text, visibility) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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 fragments, zero filler, with the resource description front-loaded and the endpoint appended. The lead phrase lacks a verb, which makes it slightly elliptical, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — listing the returned fields compensates for the missing output schema. It falls short only on result-set behavior such as ordering or pagination.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Sellasist order id' and a positive-integer bound. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific resource and scope ('notes written on one order') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from sellasist_add_order_note. It never names the write sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: pass an order id, get its notes back. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no mention of sellasist_add_order_note as the write counterpart, and no guidance on when order logs (sellasist_list_order_logs) would be the better choice.

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