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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine context: the underlying GET /Order endpoint and the meaning of each status code, which is behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then the filter axes, then the status legend, then the endpoint mapping — dense but every clause carries information. The status list is long but earns its space given the opaque numeric codes.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to call it correctly; only pagination/return-shape guidance is absent, which the annotations and schema largely imply.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by decoding the status enum values (100 draft, 200 delivered, 500 accepted, etc.), which the schema lists as bare codes with no semantics.

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 then enumerates the concrete document types it covers (quotes/Angebote, order confirmations, delivery notes), which lets an agent place it precisely relative to siblings like sevdesk_list_invoices and sevdesk_list_credit_notes.

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?

It implies usage by naming the available filters (status, number, date range, contact), so an agent can infer when this tool fits, but it never states when to prefer it over list_invoices/list_credit_notes or any preconditions.

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