List your licence orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: result ordering, the per-line field set, the blockchain-anchored SHA-256 fingerprint disclosure, and the exact authentication scopes required. It does not describe pagination edge behavior, but that is minor against an already-strong annotation set.

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 purpose, then the order_id variant, then the access requirement. Dense and largely waste-free, though the field enumeration and the auth-sentence alternatives could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned line fields and the extra Schedule/fingerprint payload for the single-order mode. Auth prerequisites and pagination are covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens with an unknown or unauthorized order_id.

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 limit, cursor and order_id are already documented in the schema itself (including 'max 100' and the next_cursor origin). The description adds only ordering information and a restatement of what order_id returns, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ('Lists the account's licence orders'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the exact payload ('publication, licence, unit, price, quantity, status'). It also distinguishes the two modes (list vs. single order via order_id), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like place_licence_order or verify_license without opening the schema.

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 description clearly signals the two usage modes: omit order_id to page through orders, pass order_id to fetch one order with Schedule text and fingerprint. It also gives the precondition (buyer API key with 'audit' scope, buyer session, or Opedd connector sign-in). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for related needs (e.g., audit events), so it is not a full 5.

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