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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait the annotations cannot convey: the API does not paginate, results are truncated to `limit` rows (newest as returned), and the untruncated count is exposed as totalCount. This prevents an agent from mistaking a partial list for the full set.

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: what is returned, the truncation caveat, and the filter/endpoint. The most decision-relevant fact (no pagination) is front-loaded in the second sentence, 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 only two optional params, full schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: returned fields, truncation semantics, totalCount, filtering, and the endpoint. Nothing material 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 baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining the consequence of `limit` (hard truncation rather than paging, with the true count in totalCount) and framing location_ids as a narrowing filter. The precise syntax of location_ids is still left to the schema.

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 plus the fields returned ('List orders with status, customers, line items, totals and dates') and names the backing endpoint GET /v1/admin/orders. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_order or get_customer_orders, so an agent must infer that this is the unfiltered/unscoped list variant.

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?

Offers narrow-scope advice ('Narrow it with location_ids') and explains the limit behavior, which implies when to use it for bulk retrieval. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_order (single order) or get_customer_orders (per-customer), so the routing decision against siblings is left implicit.

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