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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the description's added value is disclosing that phone numbers are masked and which fields are returned. It still omits pagination behavior and rate-limit/sync semantics, keeping it from 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by filters, with zero filler. The masking note is a single clause that 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 an 11-param, all-optional list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. The gaps (pagination, external_id, updated_since sync mode) are documented in the schema rather than the description.

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 coverage is 55%, so the description must partially compensate; it maps 'link, offer, tracking click_id, dates, status, conversion_status' onto filter parameters in natural language. However it never mentions page, limit, external_id, or updated_since, and adds no format/semantic detail beyond the parameter names.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the partner's orders') plus the returned fields (status, payout, payout_status), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular get_order. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating the list-vs-single-record distinction.

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 filter list implies this is the discovery/query tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_order, nor guidance on pagination vs. using updated_since for syncing. Usage must be inferred from the filter enumeration.

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