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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful facts: this is sandbox mode and settlement is simulated. It omits other mutation behaviors an agent needs — what happens on duplicate submission, whether the operation is idempotent, what state the quote must be in, and what permissions are required.

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, front-loaded with the action and constrained with the mode. No filler, though the second sentence about simulated settlement slightly restates the sandbox constraint rather than adding new information.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, four undocumented parameters, and nested object payloads, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the response contains, what the nested buyer/shippingAddress shapes are, or how the idempotency key affects retries.

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% across 4 parameters (including two nested objects), so the description must compensate and does not. Only quoteId is hinted at via "from a confirmed quote"; buyer, shippingAddress, and especially idempotencyKey (whose retry semantics are safety-relevant) get no explanation anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource ("Create a B2B order") plus the source object ("from a confirmed quote"), which is enough to distinguish it from get_order_status and the quote/product siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase "from a confirmed quote" implies the precondition that a quote must already exist and be confirmed, and "in sandbox mode" implies this is for testing rather than live commerce. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving usage largely to inference.

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