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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by clarifying that this returns 'my' orders and that the status values are restricted to the listed set, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with the main action front-loaded and filter details following. Every word contributes useful information without redundancy or 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 simple read-only list tool, the description plus schema is largely complete: it states the resource, the filtering options with allowed values, and pagination parameters are documented in the schema. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on return structure would strengthen it, but nothing essential is missing for making the call.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds clear value beyond the schema by listing the exact status values and their Korean meanings (paid, in_progress, completed, refunded, stopped), which the schema's generic '상태 필터' does not provide.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: '내 주문 내역을 조회합니다' (retrieves my order history), and states the status filter capability. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_my_order' for singular lookups.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_my_order', 'list_charge_requests', or 'create_order'. The description only shows that filtering by status is possible, providing no exclusions or alternative routing.

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