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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are paged, no filter parameters are supported server-side, and the call maps to GET /api/v3/merchant/shops/{shopId}/orders on V3. It doesn't discuss rate limits or result-size bounds, so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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: what it returns, how pagination/alternatives work, then endpoint metadata. Return contents come first, the alternative is signposted mid-stream, and nothing is redundant.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields an agent can expect and flags the paged envelope with more_pages/next_page. Missing only auth/scope requirements and any note on default page size, which keeps it from a 5.

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% — page is documented as zero-based with min/max and limit as 1-100 — so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's "Paged" adds only a nudge toward the pagination fields, which is baseline-appropriate rather than value-adding.

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 (list) and resource (order records) and enumerates what an order record contains: customer id, currency, line items, cart states, discounts, dates. It also names the single-order sibling so an agent can separate this from a lookup 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?

Explicitly warns that Stamped documents no filters for this list and routes single-order retrieval to stamped_lookup_order, which prevents a wasted filtered-query attempt. It stops short of covering the other retrieval siblings (stamped_get_order, stamped_lookup_customer), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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