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

Annotations only declare it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true); the description adds the crucial context that no money moves and nothing ships, that a demo address fallback is used instead of prompting the user, and that the returned token must be saved because estado_pedido requires it. It also explains the conditional idempotency behavior (same clave + same data returns the same order), which refines rather than contradicts idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and the demo caveat before mechanics. Every sentence carries information, but the block is long and the return-value enumeration could be tightened or split for scanability.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: it lists return values (order id, token, MXN total, tracking link, business panel link) and closes the loop with the downstream estado_pedido call. An agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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?

With 91% schema coverage the schema already does most of the work, but the description adds real semantics: productos and carrito are mutually exclusive alternatives, colonia/codigo_postal trigger the demo-delivery fallback, and comprador groups a person's orders in their panel. It leaves 'notas' and 'agente' unexplained, and doesn't spell out that a delivery location is effectively required.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Cierra la compra: crea un pedido de PRUEBA en NAO') and immediately scopes it as demo-only (pago al recibir, no se cobra nada, nadie entrega). This distinguishes it from the browsing/cart siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent between alternatives: send 'productos' (ids from buscar_productos) OR 'carrito' (token from agregar_al_carrito), naming both siblings and the token source. It also states follow-up actions (share 'seguimiento' and 'vista_del_negocio' links) and exclusions (do not ask for name/phone; do not ask for an address if missing).

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