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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and an output schema covers returns, so the description's job is to add operational context — which it does by disclosing the default 30-day window and the two distinct retrieval behaviors. It omits pagination or result-volume limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the detail mode, then the default window. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With annotations carrying safety and an output schema carrying the return shape, the description only needs to explain modes and scope, which it does. Minor remaining gap: no guidance on result limits or how to page through large order histories.

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 all four parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces order_id's dual role and the default window but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 Multi-Channel Fulfillment (MCF) orders") and enumerates the fields surfaced (status, destination, shipping speed, dates). The MCF qualifier distinguishes it by resource from generic siblings like get_orders, though it never explicitly names an alternative for non-MCF orders.

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?

Gives concrete context for the two modes: pass order_id for single-order shipment/tracking detail, otherwise it defaults to the last 30 days. However it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance (e.g., when to use get_orders or get_order_details instead).

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