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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context beyond them: results are scoped to the client, consist of internal cabinet orders and links, and one purchase may map to multiple orders—useful for callers expecting a one-to-one result.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and result, the second adds essential cardinality. The key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the caller's essential needs: the lookup key, result scope, and cardinality. Minor omissions such as empty-result behavior or pagination are acceptable here and largely outside the description's burden.

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 must compensate. It explains that woo_order_id is the purchase number from the email, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's numeric constraints. It lacks examples or format details, but the meaning is clear.

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 pair: by a purchase number from the email it returns all internal cabinet orders belonging to the client plus their links. It also clarifies the one-to-many cardinality, which marks a meaningful distinction from singular sibling get_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?

The trigger context is implied rather than explicit: use when you have a purchase number from an email and need every corresponding internal order. The description does not name alternatives such as get_order or list_orders, nor does it say when not to use this tool.

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