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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description usefully adds the concrete side effect (state transition to 'in progress') and the environment constraint ('Demo shop, sample data'), but it never clarifies what 'Propose' means operationally — whether it executes immediately or queues a pending action.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: a bracketed category tag, the action, the effect, and the scope constraint, with no filler. Slightly clipped, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is workflow context: for a non-read-only tool whose name says 'Propose', the agent still cannot tell whether this completes the action or requires a follow-up approval step.

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 only 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'order_ids' has no schema description. The plural 'orders' hints at batch semantics (consistent with minItems 1 / maxItems 100), but the description adds no format or identity information for the required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('acknowledging new orders') and adds the resulting state change ('moves them to "in progress"'), so the agent understands the effect. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like orders_get, orders_list, or the related 'propose' pattern in campaigns_propose.

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 implies applicability to 'new orders' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many orders_* siblings. It also omits whether a proposal must subsequently be confirmed (e.g. via manage_action), which is the key routing decision for this workflow.

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