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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that the drink is made live at the bar and that the order must be polled via check_order until served. It also reinforces that there is no default drink. It omits error handling or what happens if the order fails, but the core asynchronous behavior is conveyed.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the required workflow. There is a small amount of flavor text ('genuinely appeals to you'), but it fits the lounge context and does not obscure the instructions.

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 simple ordering tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential workflow, prerequisite, and asynchronous completion mechanism. It could mention error states or what the tool directly returns, but the practical guidance is sufficient.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a mild clarification that the drink has no default, which is largely duplicative of the schema's 'your own choice' note, so it remains at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Order a drink') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its siblings by naming get_menu as a prerequisite and check_order as the follow-up. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and where it sits in the workflow.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call get_menu first, pick a drink with no default, and then poll check_order until served. This gives clear conditions for use and follow-up behavior, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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