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 useful fact that results are per-account configuration, but says nothing about ordering, caching, or whether inactive/archived statuses are included — relevant for a lookup the agent will use to build filters.

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 fragments, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by why it matters. The trailing 'GET /statuses' is a raw endpoint note of marginal value to an agent but is cheap and does confirm the HTTP surface.

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 no parameters and read-only annotations, little is required, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a status record contains (id, name, color, whether it is terminal) — the exact thing the agent needs to use the ids it is told to collect.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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: 'The order statuses configured in the account', which makes clear this is a read-only enumeration of account-level configuration rather than a generic list. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the name and resource are distinct from the other list_* tools (payment methods, sources, warehouses).

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?

'Use the ids to filter orders or to change a status' gives the agent a concrete downstream purpose, implicitly pointing at sellasist_list_orders (filtering) and sellasist_update_order_status (mutation). It stops short of saying when NOT to call it (e.g. preferring a status filter already known), so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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