list_order_methods

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the tool is safe to call, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds useful domain context by equating order methods with acquisition channels, but it does not mention return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is acceptable given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key content 'All order methods' and immediately clarifies with the parenthetical 'acquisition channels'. Every word contributes value.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly identifies what is returned. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating that it returns a list of method labels, but the tool name and description together are sufficient.

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% because the only parameter 'raw' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full semantic load for parameters.

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 states the resource clearly: 'All order methods (acquisition channels).' It goes beyond the name by clarifying that order methods are acquisition channels, which distinguishes it from similar list_* tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Lists' or 'Returns', relying on the tool name to imply the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as list_delivery_types or list_payment_types, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the noun phrase description.

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