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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a monetary cost (platform fee CHF 0.05 per accepted call), a hard safety rule about not trusting prices from the request body, and the required pre-state. The idempotency claim is already covered by idempotentHint, and no failure/rollback behavior is described.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action comes first, then preconditions, then the money rule. The telegraphic 'Never:' fragment is terse but earns its place by preventing a costly mistake.

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?

For a mutating, fee-charging tool with no output schema, it covers the essential preconditions, cost, ordering and idempotency. It leaves gaps on error behavior and what the created order returns, but the core invocation path is complete.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already explain quote_id, mandate_token and idempotency_key (including retry semantics). The description only adds ordering ('quote first') and omits flow_id entirely, so it barely exceeds the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('the order') and ties it to the classification output, so the intent is legible. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as quote or mandate_create beyond the implicit dependency chain.

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 states a clear precondition ('Needs state CLASSIFIED') and an explicit prohibition ('Never: Take a price from the request body'), plus the required sequence (quote first, then send quote_id/mandate_token/idempotency_key). It stops short of naming the sibling tools (quote, mandate_create) as the alternatives to call beforehand.

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