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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth mechanisms (x-api-key or Bearer), the specific HTTP responses (201/202/402/401), the meaning of the accepted_pending_fulfilment status, and that orders are always recorded and accessible via tracking URL. This is thorough and leaves little to inference.

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 long but dense with actionable information. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then efficiently covers status codes, auth, and alternatives without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the provisioning email to a footer.

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?

The description covers auth requirements, response semantics, and routing to alternatives, which is essential for correct usage. However, it omits parameter-level guidance (what values to pass for trade, location, etc.) and any note about required vs optional fields beyond the schema. Since the schema lacks descriptions, this is a notable omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the 7 parameters (trade, urgency, location, nte_cents, description, callback_url, reference_id) beyond mentioning 'trade' and 'location' indirectly in context. The description does not add meaning to the schema, and the schema itself has no property descriptions. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested objects and enums.

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 tool creates a dispatch work order, explicitly says it auto-matches a contractor, and describes the HTTP status codes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming dispatch.estimate and dispatch.quote as alternatives for pricing, making it unambiguous which tool to use for order creation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the paid tool requiring a provisioned integration key, and it explicitly directs users to use dispatch.estimate (keyless) or dispatch.quote (self-serve credential) for pricing jobs. It also explains that self-serve OAuth is not entitled for order creation (402), giving clear exclusions and alternatives.

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