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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the actual state transition, the required confirmed=true gate, and the internal channel/ChannelOAuthId resolution. It also notes that refreshed order data is returned, which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

The purpose and precondition are front-loaded, but the description is padded: 'Search terms: sales fixedorderline' adds nothing, and the channel/ChannelOAuthId requirement is stated twice. Several boilerplate lines ('explicit tool with a fixed endpoint; it is not a generic endpoint caller') could be trimmed.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool, the definition covers precondition, confirmation requirement, channel resolution, and the output effect ('moves eligible lines... and returns refreshed order data'). With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out further, so the description is close to complete.

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 body, confirmed, and channelOAuthId are already documented. The description adds the payload type (LoadAddressesFromOrderLineRequest) and repeats the OrderLineIds:int[] main field plus the confirmed=true and channel header requirements, but offers no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (POST /api/Sales/FixedOrderLine) and the business function: moving lines from CompletedAutoOrderPending to CompletedAutoOrder. The state precondition helps separate it from siblings like hgr_mark_order_lines_fixed or hgr_force_process_order_lines, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

'Use only for an exact order line whose current state is CompletedAutoOrderPending and the user confirms the corresponding visible Mark as Purchased action' is an explicit when-to-use with a restriction. There is no explicit 'use X instead when Y', which keeps it from the top score.

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