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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the operation uses POST solely because criteria go in the body, which preempts an agent from misreading POST as a mutation. It also discloses the 100-result cap, a limit not encoded in annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, scope, and cap; the endpoint trail is compact. The parenthetical '(id, date, status)' is ambiguous, but it doesn't obscure the front-loaded purpose.

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?

All four parameters are optional, the schema is fully described, and no output schema exists, so the description's remaining job is to explain semantics and limits. It covers the result cap and the POST/read-only nuance, but leaves the return shape and ordering unstated.

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% and each parameter is already documented, including the 'and/or' optionality. The description reinforces that criteria can be combined freely and that results are capped, but it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline would be 3, but the '(id, date, status)' note clarifies the returned fields, and the read-only-plus-POST framing helps. However, '(id, date, status)' is ambiguous as a return-shape hint, and the 100-cap is not a parameter constraint. I'll score 3, not 5.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (Find) and resource (orders) with the exact scope: a creation-date range and/or a single status, capped at 100 results, plus the endpoint POST /orders_search. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling sellasist_list_orders, which an agent could easily confuse with this filtered search.

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 by the stated filter criteria (date range and/or status) and the 'find up to 100' framing suggests a bounded lookup rather than a full listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling sellasist_list_orders or sellasist_get_order as alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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