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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: results are 'newest first', the response includes nested line items, customer, allocations and shipments, and it maps to GET /orders. It omits pagination caveats, but the page/page_size schema fields cover those.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and ordering, the second summarizes filtering. No filler or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it discloses ordering, returned entities, and the endpoint. Slightly short on pagination guidance, but the schema handles page/page_size.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description only summarizes the filter categories and adds no syntax, format or cross-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 pair ('List or search') and resource ('orders'), and enumerates the fields returned (line items, customer, delivery address, store, allocations, shipments). This is clearly distinguishable from the single-order sibling veeqo_get_order.

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 enumerates the available filter dimensions (status, store, tag, free text, dates, update time), which implies when each filter applies, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as veeqo_get_order for a single order. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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