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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece beyond them: the required orders.read scope. It says nothing about rate limits, maximum result windows, or how paging behaves when records change between calls.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the paging trait, then the permission requirement. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said something about the response envelope or how a paginated batch is shaped. The schema compensates heavily on parameters, and annotations cover safety, so what remains is a modest but real gap for a list-and-page tool.

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%, with every parameter including offset, limit, order, direction, embed and field documented in more detail than the description could carry. The description's only contribution is the word "paging", which the schema's offset description already explains fully. 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 verb and resource ("List orders") plus a behavioral qualifier ("with paging"), which separates it in spirit from sellsy_get_order and sellsy_search_orders. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the list-vs-get-vs-search boundary.

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?

"with paging" implies browsing a result set rather than fetching a single known order, and "Needs orders.read" states a prerequisite. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sellsy_search_orders, which is the most plausible alternative for this resource.

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