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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description layers on real behavioral context: re-validation of prices and availability against the current menu, the non-obvious merging of kitchen and bar orders into one entry, delivery-only fields (address, fee, stage), and the strict personal-scope constraint. This is information an agent could not derive from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then progressively details return contents, repeat-ordering linkage, and filters. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the return-shape enumeration is the longest stretch and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (venue, code, status, total, type, timestamp, items with quantity/price/choices, delivery address/fee/stage). Combined with the pagination and scope notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 already 83%, documenting query, since, before, status and restaurantId, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter categories and maps 'text' to the query parameter, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema does not already carry.

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 and resource ('List the connected person's own order history at WaitApp venues') plus ordering ('newest first') and a hard scope ('Only ever shows this person's own orders'). That scope immediately distinguishes it from sibling order tools like track_order and cancel_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?

Explains the filtering and pagination model ('Filter by venue, status, text ... or date, and page back with nextBefore') and connects the output to draft_delivery_order for repeat ordering, which is genuine routing guidance. It never states an explicit when-not or names an alternative to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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