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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the underlying sevdesk endpoint (GET /Order) and the meaning of each status code, which is behavioral knowledge not present in the structured fields. It stops short of describing pagination defaults or rate 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?

Two dense sentences plus a short endpoint tag, front-loaded with the resource scope before filters and status semantics. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is a read-only list with zero required params and fully documented schema. The description supplies scope, filters and status semantics, which is sufficient; return-shape and paging-default details are the only minor omissions.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds parameter meaning by labeling the enum codes (100 draft, 200 delivered, 300 rejected, 500 accepted, 750 partially calculated, 1000 calculated) — labels the schema enum lacks. It also groups the filters by dimension (status, number, date range, contact).

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 (List) and resource (orders) and immediately disambiguates the resource by enumerating the subtypes it covers — quotes (Angebote), order confirmations, delivery notes. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as list_invoices, list_credit_notes and list_vouchers.

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?

The description names the available filters (status, number, date range, contact), which implies how the tool is meant to be used, but it never states when to choose it over the sibling list tools or any prerequisite/exclusion. Usage is only implied, matching a 3.

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