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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It adds real value by disclosing that deleted orders are excluded and by citing the underlying endpoint GET /SalesOrders/{page}. The phrase 'unless asked for' is slightly ambiguous since no schema parameter exposes a deleted-inclusion flag, which tempers the score.

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 with no filler: purpose and filters lead, behavioral caveat follows, and the API reference closes. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 14 fully documented parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. It does not cover pagination behavior or result shape, but that is already handled by the schema and the read-only hint.

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 every one of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description summarizes filter categories but adds no syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (sales orders) and specifies the available filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling unleashed_get_sales_order, but the 'List' framing plus filter enumeration makes the scope clear.

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 description implies usage by listing filter dimensions (status, customer, order number, warehouse, date range), which tells the agent what this tool is for. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-get_sales_order routing or prerequisites.

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