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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the address=delivery nuance for the location filter and the fact that it returns a total count and cumulative amount. Auth and rate-limit details remain unstated, but the bar is lower given full annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the searchable dimensions. It is dense and low-waste, though the return-value sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 17-parameter, zero-required search tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequately complete. Its main omission is routing guidance relative to siblings, which does not undermine correct invocation.

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 all 17 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter categories and adds the invoice/delivery distinction for location, but contributes little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (Recherche) and resource (commandes) and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (référence, client, statut, période, montant, produit, lieu). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_customers, search_invoices, search_products, and 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 implies usage by listing searchable criteria but never states when to prefer this over get_order (single lookup) or list_unpaid_orders (a filtered subset). No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, so usage is only inferable.

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