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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the sort order ('newest first') and an access prerequisite ('Owner or office'). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result shape, but does meaningfully add context beyond 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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, ordering, and access. Only the limit/pagination parameter behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

At 0% schema coverage with 4 params, the description is expected to compensate. It maps shop_id/job_id/vendor_id to their meanings ('for the shop, or for one job or supplier') but leaves 'limit' entirely undocumented.

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 (list) and resource (purchase orders) plus the scoping options (shop, one job, or supplier) and ordering (newest first). Clear enough to distinguish from po_get, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 phrase 'Owner or office' signals a role/permission constraint on who should invoke it, and the scope options imply filtering usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternatives guidance (e.g., vs po_get).

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