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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the tool rescans and stores suggestions, exposes the `rescanned: false` caching signal, explains that only rule-bearing items can appear, and warns that nothing has been sent to a supplier. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 flows through scope, the suggestion-vs-order distinction, the follow-on workflow, the empty-result caveat, and the caching nuance. Every sentence carries actionable content with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the return shape (suggested orders grouped by supplier and outlet, plus the `rescanned` flag) and covers the empty-result edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter meaning is needed (baseline 4 for 0 params). The description usefully mentions the `rescanned` return field, adding a little beyond the empty schema, but there are no parameters to disambiguate.

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 ('rescans stock against the merchant's auto-reorder rules and returns the suggested orders'), including the grouping by supplier and outlet. It sharply distinguishes a suggestion from an order and clarifies what an empty result means, so an agent can tell this apart from related stock/PO tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use phrasing ('what am I running low on', 'what should I order this week'), an explicit follow-on workflow ('turn one into a real order with update_purchase_order ... then send_purchase_order'), and a when-empty branch ('offer set_reorder_rule'). Alternatives and conditions are named rather than inferred.

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