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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description mentions 'step progress and status' as what is listed, which adds some context about return content, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It earns its place without waste, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'step progress' entails or the structure of returned orders, which might be helpful. However, given the annotations and schema, it is sufficient to call correctly but leaves gaps in understanding the output.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'status' fully documented including enum-like values in the schema description. The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'List equipment installation orders with step progress and status.' This is clear about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from other list/get tools in the sibling set, such as get_shipments or get_equipment_classes, beyond the resource name itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description merely states what it does; it does not help the agent decide between this and similar listing tools like get_shipments or list_jobs.

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