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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about active-only scope and returned fields, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral details beyond what the annotations and schema imply.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then efficiently lists returned fields and adds a short usage cue and endpoint. Every sentence contributes without repetition or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by naming the main returned fields and clarifying that only active orders are listed. It is nearly complete for a simple no-parameter list tool, though it could mention pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the rule specifies baseline 4 for 0-param tools. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, so this is appropriately handled.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the account's active (not yet completed) delivery orders.' It clearly scopes the tool to active, not-yet-completed orders and lists the fields returned, which distinguishes it from singular get_order and broader query_orders siblings.

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 gives clear context with 'Good first call' and specifies the active-order scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as query_orders or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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