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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing that deleted orders are excluded by default and by citing the underlying paginated endpoint GET /SalesOrders/{page}. It does not describe rate limits, page limits, or result volume, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose then filters, followed by the API mapping. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'unless asked for' clause is unexplained and slightly undermines the crispness.

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 14-parameter, fully-schema-documented read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering, and default exclusion of deleted records. The main omission is any hint about pagination defaults or result-set size, which the endpoint reference only partially compensates for.

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 with format and range details. The description only mirrors the filter categories at a high level and adds no syntax or interaction semantics (e.g. how orderNumber overrides other filters) beyond what the schema states.

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 sales orders') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (status, customer, order number, warehouse, date range), which clearly separates it from the singular get_sales_order sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools like unleashed_get_sales_order or unleashed_list_sales_quotes.

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 filter enumeration implies when the tool is appropriate, and the exclusion of deleted orders gives useful context. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not guidance is given; 'unless asked for' is also ambiguous because no parameter in the schema lets the caller request deleted orders.

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