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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the ownership/authorization requirement and the cancellation note exception, but does not describe side effects, status transition constraints, or recovery behavior beyond the label.

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?

Brief, front-loaded purpose, and no filler. The constraint fragments are redundant with the schema but are short and emphasize key requirements.

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?

Rich schema and output schema compensate for the terse description. However, with 10 parameters and multiple handoff-recovery fields, the description does not explain how the recovery scenario maps to carrier, tracking_id, handoff_endpoint, or external_checkout_id, leaving a moderate selection gap for an agent.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description's note and agent_id statements are redundant with schema descriptions and add no new meaning beyond emphasizing those constraints.

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?

Title and description establish a status-mutation tool for order management. 'Agent manual correction or degraded handoff recovery' adds two concrete contexts and, alongside sibling names like order_track and order_list, implies a write operation, though it never explicitly names the resource or distinguishes from order_execute.

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 clearly states when to use it: for manual correction and degraded handoff recovery. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is enough to route an agent away from read-only siblings and order_execute.

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