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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds operational behavior the annotations cannot convey: the multi-call session loop, session-token reuse, the empty first call, and the fact that the final 'confirm' answer creates a real order. That is genuinely value-adding context beyond structured fields.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first establishes scope and audience, the second establishes the call protocol and the destructive outcome. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be described, and the description correctly references the terminal 'complete' status instead. It leaves minor gaps around handling of expired/invalid sessions or bad answers, but is otherwise complete for a stateful wizard tool.

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 all three parameters (action, answer, session_token) are already documented, including 'back' and 'omit on first call'. The description only lightly reinforces these (same session_token across calls, empty first call), which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does 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 states a specific tool type (stateful text-only purchase flow) and scopes it to clients without widget support, which implicitly separates it from the direct create_order sibling. However, it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with the other order tools, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear invocation protocol: repeat calls with the same session_token, one question at a time, until status is complete, and the first call takes empty arguments. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it stops short of naming a preferred alternative (e.g. create_order) for clients that do have widget/direct support.

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