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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-read-only mutation, and the description adds substantially more: that stock and the cost book are mutated, partial-failure semantics via partialFailure and stockApplied.complete, and retry hazards ('still being received' means an in-flight delivery; a wrong-status error means already fully received). It also discloses the side effect that the supplier's stored cost is NOT updated unless an item is listed in updateSupplierCostVariantIds.

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 effect and mutation warning, then the preconditions and failure handling — a sensible order. It is long and leans heavily on ALL-CAPS emphasis, which is slightly noisy, but nearly every sentence carries operational content rather than 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's consequences, allowed order states, partial-receipt behavior, failure/retry semantics, and the cost-book side effect. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and interpret the ambiguous outcomes.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: unitCost is 'what this delivery actually cost per unit' (invoice price, may differ from the order), lines represent 'what actually arrived' rather than what was ordered, and it explains the interaction between unitCost and updateSupplierCostVariantIds. It adds value without re-documenting every field.

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 ('Book a delivery in against an order that was sent') and spells out the effect ('ADDS THE RECEIVED QUANTITIES TO REAL STOCK... updates the item cost book'), explicitly contrasting it with a mere note. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like hub_record_received_goods or hub_receive_stock_transfer, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit preconditions ('Only sent and partially_received orders can be received'), state transitions ('A short delivery leaves the order partially_received — receive again when the rest turns up'), and operating advice ('CONFIRM THE QUANTITIES WITH THE MERCHANT FIRST'). It also routes the agent to get_purchase_order and get_receive_progress for follow-up, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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