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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/orders) and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about pagination semantics, default ordering, or result caps beyond what the page/limit schema entries already state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the filter surface and the endpoint. The middle enumeration is long but every clause names a genuinely distinct filter, so it earns its space; only the trailing endpoint token is arguably 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?

With 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description does the right work: it enumerates the response fields, which is exactly the gap left by the absent output schema. The remaining gaps (pagination metadata, sort order) are minor for a read-only list endpoint.

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 every filter named in the description (status, payment method, customer ids, amount range, has_sale, discount code, free text) maps one-to-one onto a documented parameter, so the description mainly restates the schema. It adds no format details, defaults, or combination semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List or search orders') and immediately enumerates the payload shape (totals, customer, addresses, payment/fulfillment status, discounts, line items, shipping), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name the natural sibling get_order for single-record retrieval, so the list-vs-get boundary must be inferred from the name alone.

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 filter enumeration ('Filter by payment status, fulfillment status, payment method, customer ids, amount range, sale/discount use or free text') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to shoprocket_get_order or shoprocket_get_store_stats for the adjacent tasks.

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