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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral detail on top: row-based paging with start/end cursors capped at 100 rows per call, newest-first sort order, and the shape of each returned row (timestamps, totals, driver payment, distance, carrier). That return-shape disclosure matters because there is no output schema; only rate limits and empty-result behavior are left out.

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 with purpose, then paging semantics, then returned fields, plus the underlying endpoint. It is a single dense sentence carrying a lot of clauses, but nothing is redundant 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?

All five parameters are described in the schema, no output schema exists yet the description enumerates row contents, and paging is fully explained. The remaining gap is the default scope when no filters are supplied (all-time? newest 100?), which matters given zero required parameters.

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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: cursors are ROW indices (1–100, then 101–200) with a 100-row ceiling, which disambiguates against the time-based filters in the same parameter set. It does not clarify how the two time filters combine or what range applies when they are omitted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search delivery orders') and immediately scopes it to historical/completed orders filtered by placement time and status. 'including completed ones' implicitly separates it from the sibling shipday_list_active_orders and shipday_get_delivery_progress, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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 rather than stated: mentioning completed orders and time-window filtering suggests history/audit lookups, but the description never says 'use this when X, use shipday_list_active_orders when Y' and lists no exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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