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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, no side effects.' It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the required Authorization header, currency conversion behavior, and the decoded status booleans. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers role selection, output fields, side effects, and auth. It is slightly dense due to the enumerated output fields, but every sentence adds useful operational detail and there is no filler.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: authentication, role semantics, sorting, output contents, and the key side effect declaration. No critical operational context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains role, limit, and currency. The description adds extra meaning by tying currency to the output ('total price (converted to the requested currency, default USD)') and by framing role as buyer versus seller perspectives, which is not fully captured by the parameter names alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the caller's most recent orders.' It clearly distinguishes the buyer and seller perspectives, and it references orders.status as a related sibling, so an agent understands this is the list-all-orders view rather than a single-order status tool.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by explaining exactly when to pass role 'buyer' versus 'seller' and notes the authentication requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as orders.status for single-order checks, so it misses the 'when not to use' guidance needed for a 5.

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