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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the pagination note and the endpoint path; it says nothing about result size, ordering, or error conditions beyond what the schema already documents.

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 short sentences with the key scope and paging hint front-loaded. The trailing raw endpoint is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition covers scope and pagination adequately. It could say more about what an order record contains, but nothing essential for invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, deleted, direction and next_query are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces paging via next_query but adds no semantics beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and clarifies what an 'order' means here (goods orders between locations/suppliers), which disambiguates it from the transaction/product siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 mention of 'Page with next_query' implies the typical retrieval workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling list tools such as tillhub_list_transactions or tillhub_list_stock.

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