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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: the hidden default-time-window behavior (last 24 hours) and the ids_only compact mode. It does not discuss pagination behavior or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and contents of the result, followed by the default window and the ids_only variant. No filler; every clause carries information.

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-value burden and does so: full details plus the specific fields (addresses, items, packages, carrier) and the ids-only alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default 24-hour window and framing the two date parameters as the way to look further back. That connects the parameters to a behavior the schema alone does not express.

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 unshipped orders') and immediately defines the scope ('new, not yet printed'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_printed_orders, list_shipped_orders, and list_orders. An agent can pick this tool without opening any 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: default lookback is 24 hours, and since_order_date / since_last_updated extend the window. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for other order states, but the scoping definition implies the boundary well enough.

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