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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description never explains the consequences — what stopping a line does, whether it can be reversed, or what state the line ends in. 'Returns the result or applies the effect of the stop order line operation' is content-free, and the confirmed gate it mentions is already documented in the schema.

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?

Filled with self-referential filler ('This is an explicit tool with a fixed endpoint; it is not a generic endpoint caller', 'Search terms: sales stoporderline') that pushes the actually useful payload hint into the middle. The real information could be stated in two sentences instead of a generated block.

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, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully described in the schema. What's missing is the one thing only the description can supply: what a stop order line operation means for the seller's listing/order and what happens after the call. For a destructive, non-idempotent write that gap matters.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add something the schema lacks — that the body is a LoadAddressesFromOrderLineRequest with OrderLineIds: int[] — but given the schema's body is an untyped object, this is a partial and slightly suspicious hint (the request type name doesn't match 'StopOrderLine') rather than a reliable parameter map.

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?

The description does name a specific verb and resource (POST api/Sales/StopOrderLine in sales/order operations), so the basic purpose is recoverable. But it never says what 'stop order line' actually does to the order, and it offers no differentiation from sibling hgr_stop_order_lines or the other sales line tools (hgr_post_sales_forceprocessorderline, hgr_post_sales_markasdispatched). Mostly boilerplate wrapped around the endpoint path.

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 guidance is circular: 'Use it when a client needs to run the stop order line operation.' That restates the name rather than stating conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer hgr_stop_order_lines or another sales line tool. Only the 'Requires confirmed=true' line gives any actionable condition.

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