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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in annotations: the sort order and the required 'orders:read' scope. It says nothing about pagination or result size, which keeps it at an adequate rather than rich level.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the ordering and auth requirement front-loaded. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 annotated read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and ordering but omits how results are paged/limited and whether the list is scoped to the caller. Enough to invoke, not enough to predict the response.

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?

The single parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — yet it never mentions limit, its default of 20, or its 100 cap. This is a missed opportunity for the one parameter that exists, though the omission is low-stakes for a simple read tool.

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 the resource (orders) and an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is more than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_order (single fetch) or create_order, so the boundary is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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 on when to use list_orders versus get_order, and no mention of what 'recent' means or how to page. The reader is left to infer usage entirely from the name and sibling context.

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