wc_orders_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how pagination behaves, what the default result ordering/size is, or what the response contains. Only the implicit non-destructiveness of "search" provides any signal.

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?

At four words it is certainly front-loaded and free of padding, but the brevity comes from omission rather than disciplined editing. It is too short for a three-parameter search tool, so it is under-specified rather than well-sized.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage guidance, an agent lacks nearly everything needed to invoke this tool confidently. The description does nothing to fill the gap left by the structured fields.

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?

All three parameters (page, status, per_page) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about any of them. In particular, valid values for status and the interaction between page and per_page are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Search WooCommerce orders" names a verb (search) and a resource (WooCommerce orders), so the function is decipherable. But it is nearly a restatement of the tool name wc_orders_search and draws no boundary against siblings such as wc_get_order (single order retrieval) or wc_products_search. Adequate but minimally informative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., wc_get_order for a known ID), and no stated prerequisites or filtering context. An agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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