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

The annotation readOnlyHint is true, and the description confirms a read-only GET operation. The description adds a note about the return shape ('Returns { data:[...], pagination }') and clarifies what orders are, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so the added detail is modest.

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 concise, consisting of four short, information-dense sentences. It covers purpose, endpoint, filtering, and a minimal return shape with no fluff or repetition. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary technical details, earning a perfect score.

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 simple scope of the tool (3 optional params, no required fields, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the endpoint, the semantic meaning of orders, filtering capability, and return shape. The schema covers parameter details, and the annotation covers the read-only nature. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior beyond the shape, but that is not critical for a basic list operation.

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 have descriptive entries in the schema (100% coverage per context signals). The description merely echoes 'Filter via `params`' without adding any new meaning beyond the schema's detailed descriptions for limit, offset, and params. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'orders', with a parenthetical clarification that orders are 'ticket/product purchases'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_donations and list_posts. The inclusion of the API endpoint 'GET /orders' further reinforces the specific purpose.

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 a direct instruction to 'Filter via `params`', which is a usage guideline for how to call the tool. However, it does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_donations or list_user_donations, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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