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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active orders' which implies a filter and suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, pagination, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scoping. It is concise, with no redundant words or unnecessary details, and directly conveys the tool's purpose without padding.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (active orders) and the filtering dimension (region/city). The limit parameter is covered by the schema, and the lack of output schema means no expectation of return structure. It could mention that it returns a list of orders, but that is implied by the word 'list'. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% (both city and limit are described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it reiterates the city filtering but does not introduce new syntax or semantics. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('active orders for milling and cutting from the Factory's Order Exchange') with a scoping condition (selected region/city). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on machines, company info, FAQ, etc., making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 provides clear context (orders for a region/city) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, since no sibling tool deals with orders, the usage is implicitly unambiguous. It would benefit from an explicit statement like 'use this to get active orders' but the absence of competing tools reduces the need.

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