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

With readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is already covered, but the description usefully adds what the read returns: order number, status flags, totals in cents, workflow status, assigned technicians, plus the fact that results are paged. It stops short of describing pagination defaults or result-count behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the routing hint, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded and the ordering matches how an agent would consume it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does describe the salient fields, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain: no default limit/pagination behavior and no indication of what the shop scope implies for result volume.

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% and both skip/limit are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'paged' wording reinforces their purpose but adds no format or default-value detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource with scope: 'List work orders for the shop, paged.' It immediately names the sibling it is not (shopmonkey_list_customer_orders), so an agent can distinguish it from the customer-scoped variant without opening either 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?

Explicit routing rule: 'For one customer's orders use shopmonkey_list_customer_orders,' which gives the agent a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not, however, state any other scope caveats or prerequisites (permissions, default page size when limit is omitted).

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