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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuinely useful behavioral scope by disclosing that webpage requests, deals, and personal data (phones, e-mail) are excluded from results, which is not derivable from 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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with what the tool returns before adding the city filter and the exclusion caveat. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field list and trailing exclusion clause make it slightly denser than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes them briefly. Combined with the explicit exclusion list and the filter note, it is nearly complete; only pagination/limit semantics are left untouched, and those are covered by the schema.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema itself. The description mentions the city filter, matching the 'city' param, but adds no syntax, format, or default/limit detail beyond what the schema provides (city description and 'default 10, max 30' limit already live there). Baseline 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 names a specific resource (active production-capacity exchange orders) with a concrete scope ('milling, cutting, sawing'), and states what it returns (id, material, quantity, budget, deadline, link). This resource is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, which deal with machines, categories, FAQ, and leads, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes an optional city filter and that it returns 'active' orders, which hints at when to use it, but it names no alternative and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent, for example, why to pick this over ask_manager for a sourcing question.

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