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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the side effect of notifying a manager, the pricing branch tied to account type, and the return payload (order number and total). It does not state whether the order is irreversible or what authentication/permission constraints apply beyond key type.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and pricing semantics, then inputs, then effects and return value. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 create-order tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains pricing derivation, side effects, and the returned values. It stops short of error behavior or idempotency/duplicate-order semantics, which matters for an order-placement tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents name, phone, and comment. The description adds modest value by restating the items shape [{article, qty}] and pointing to find_product for article codes, but does not add constraints (e.g., qty bounds, article format) beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Разместить заказ от дилера по нетто-ценам") and the closing sentence confirms the effect ("Создаёт заказ, уведомляет менеджера, возвращает № заказа и итог"). This clearly separates it from calculation and quote siblings such as calc_nmck, get_quote, and make_kp.

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 gives concrete usage context: articles must come from find_product, and pricing depends on whether the API key belongs to a dealer account (dealer prices) or not (list prices). It also clarifies that the phone parameter does not affect discounts. What's missing is an explicit when-not or a direct comparison to siblings like get_quote or make_kp.

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