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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds the behavioral cap of 25 results, which neither annotations nor schema disclose. It stops short of saying what happens when more than 25 matches exist (pagination/truncation), so it is strong but not complete.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the result cap, followed by the disambiguating trigger. No 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?

For a low-complexity, one-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger, result cap and the sibling alternative. The only real gap is behavior when matches exceed 25, which is minor.

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% and the 'detail' enum is fully described in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g. it never mentions the summary/full toggle).

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), resource (orders sharing one order number), scope (last 25, re-deliveries/repeated jobs), and even the underlying endpoint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from trackpod_get_order, so an agent can pick correctly 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when an order number was reused') and names the alternative (trackpod_get_order) plus the condition that signals the switch ('returns only one of them'). Nothing is left to inference.

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