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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires OAuth authentication and reveals the output fields returned. No contradictory or misleading behavior is stated.

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 two short clauses with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement and field list – every word earns its place.

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 explains who the data belongs to, what fields are returned, and the auth precondition. It doesn't mention limit semantics, but the schema provides type/range and the tool is otherwise simple enough that no major context is missing.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter semantics, but it never mentions the `limit` parameter or its effect. The schema's type/constraints are not enough on their own; the description adds zero value here.

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 clearly identifies the resource (orders of the logged-in customer) and enumerates the returned fields (number, date, amount, payment, shipment, invoice link). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_order (single order) and my_loyalty.

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 phrase 'вошедшего покупателя' sets the usage context: this is for the current authenticated user's order list. It also mentions the OAuth requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.