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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive semantics, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required auth scope, the HTTP endpoint, and the pagination contract ('pass next_offset as offset'). It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior beyond what the schema already notes for bad filter fields, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by filtering, auth, endpoint, and return shape, with no filler. The bare endpoint mention is mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (count, total, next_offset, items) and explaining the pagination loop. Combined with full schema coverage for all seven optional parameters and the scope requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents q, sort, with, limit, filter, offset, and contact_id in detail. The description only restates contact_id, filter, and the offset/next_offset relationship, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List order confirmations') and the underlying endpoint, which is enough to separate it from the sibling get_order_confirmation (single fetch) and the other list_* tools. It stops short of explicitly saying how it differs from those siblings, so it lands just below a 5.

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 gives concrete selection mechanics ('filter by contact_id or a JSON filter') and a prerequisite ('Needs the "order_confirmation" scope'), which implies when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance or steering toward get_order_confirmation when a specific id is known, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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