List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description adds that results are paginated and that late_only can mean two different things resolved via a per-row delivery_status — useful behavioral context — but the sentence about row contents largely restates fields the output schema already exposes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and filter scope, with no filler. The second sentence about row contents is slightly redundant against the output schema, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Given 10 optional parameters at 90% schema coverage, the description supplies what is left: that results are paginated and that late-only spans delivered-late and overdue orders.

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 90%, so nearly every parameter is self-documenting in the schema and baseline 3 applies. The description's parenthetical filter list mirrors the schema rather than adding format, defaults, or edge-case behavior, and it never mentions the sort parameter or limit caps.

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?

Says "Search orders" with a concrete enumeration of the filter dimensions (status, customer, placed date range, total range, late-only) plus pagination, so the verb+resource+scope are unambiguous. It stops short of naming siblings such as get_order or search_customers, so the distinction from a single-order fetch must be inferred from the word "Search".

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?

Usage is only implied: the filter list tells the agent this is the filtered/multi-row retrieval path, but there is no explicit "use this when / prefer get_order when you already have an id" statement. The sibling set (get_order, sales_report, search_customers) is common enough that an agent can guess, but the description does not route it.

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