search_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('compact, normalized order summaries with total amounts, item counts, status, and pagination metadata'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result ordering for a read/mutation boundary that is otherwise unstated.

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, zero waste: the first front-loads purpose and filters, the second covers the return payload. Nothing redundant.

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 a zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and noting pagination metadata, so an agent knows what to expect. It is nearly complete, with only ordering/sorting behavior left unspecified.

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 every parameter (page, limit, status, date_from, date_to) is already documented with defaults, bounds, and ISO 8601 format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that status and dates are filters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search and filter WooCommerce merchant orders') plus the filtering dimensions (status, date range), so an agent can tell this is a query tool rather than a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_order, so distinction relies on inference from the verb.

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 mention of status and date-range filtering implies when the tool is appropriate (browsing orders across a period), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_order for a known ID, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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