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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds that confirmation is mandatory and channel context is resolved internally, but it does not explain reversibility or exact side effects beyond marking orders dispatched.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward around 'resolved from visible order Reference' but remains appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive mutation profile, so the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for invocation, with the main missing piece being sibling routing guidance.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirmed requirement and the reference/channel context, but adds little parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (marks) and resource (orders resolved from visible order Reference) with the resulting state (manually dispatched). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic processing, though it does not explicitly name nearby siblings such as mark-as-dispatched or force-process.

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 description gives prerequisites (confirmed=true, channelOAuthId resolution) but does not explain when to choose this over hgr_post_sales_markasdispatched, hgr_process_order_lines, or hgr_force_process_order_lines. Usage is implied by the tool name and action, with clear gaps around alternatives.

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