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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a human designer emails a proof and nothing is printed until the user approves it, and the checkout_url only appears when online payment is enabled. It does not warn that a second call creates a second real order (annotations only say idempotentHint=false) or how to cancel one, which is the main behavioral gap for a live-money mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and returns, then the production/proof caveat, then the confirmation precondition. Every sentence carries information the schema and annotations do not.

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?

Compensates for the absent output schema by naming the return values, and explains the fulfillment workflow an agent needs to set user expectations. It is not fully complete for an 11-parameter open-world mutation: pricing modifiers (sets, rush, next_day_air, promo_code) and duplicate-order risk go undocumented.

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 45% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for design_notes (enumerates the card text fields and style/logo instructions). It says nothing about the other 45% — sets vs quantity multiplication, rush, next_day_air, blind_dropship, promo_code, artwork_urls — and the schema's per-parameter descriptions for those are sparse or absent.

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 and resource ('Creates a real Luxor plastic business card order') and names what comes back (order reference, quote, Stripe checkout_url). The word 'real' plus the checkout link sharply separates it from get_quote, which only prices an order.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: confirm material, quantity, total price and shipping address with the user before calling. That implies a quote step precedes it, but it never names get_quote or says to use search_designs to obtain template_url, so the routing to siblings is only inferable.

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