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

Annotations only cover read-only/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: application happens item-by-item in the background, the order keeps its old status until completion, and `failures` items did NOT receive stock for concrete reasons (deleted item, removed outlet, removed supplier link). It also states the correct remediation scope (per item, not full re-receive), which is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then background mechanics, then the failure-handling caution. Slightly long with a dash-heavy sentence, but every sentence contributes actionable information about status lag or failure semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description pre-explains the most decision-relevant return field (`failures`) and what its entries mean, plus what to do about them. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the receiptId field is already documented as 'Receipt id from receive_purchase_order'. The description adds a second legitimate source (get_purchase_order's still-receiving ID), which is meaningful guidance 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?

States a specific concept — how far a delivery has progressed in being applied to stock — and explicitly positions itself as the only source of the real progress status, distinguishing it from get_purchase_order which shows the stale 'receiving' status.

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?

Tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required ID (from receive_purchase_order's return, or get_purchase_order's still-being-received field) and why to call it at all (the order status lags behind background work). It also implicitly rules out a whole re-receive approach by saying the fix is per item.

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