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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this in plain language by explicitly denying that an order is placed — valuable because the tool name implies a write action. It doesn't cover what the returned link looks like (URL string? embedded in text?), leaving a small gap.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the affirmative purpose is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying denial. 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?

For a link-returning tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return (an ordering/checkout link) and the side-effect profile. Slight gap: it doesn't say whether the link is personalized to the 'items' input or whether that parameter is ignored entirely.

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%, and the single 'items' parameter is already documented in the schema as '(informational)'. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at full coverage but means no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Get the official online ordering or checkout link' for a named entity. This also disambiguates the potentially misleading tool name 'start_order' (which sounds like a mutation). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_products, but the resource is distinct enough to be told apart.

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?

'No order is placed by this tool' tells the agent what this tool does NOT do, which is useful guardrail context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus list_products (browse items) or send_inquiry (ask questions), so the agent must infer the routing.

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