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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses concrete outcomes: status draft_incomplete with a DRAFT watermark for missing fields, validation_failed for rule violations (with examples like >3 shareholders, UG with 50% payment), and the K/J/KM mark scheme. The non-side-effecting nature ('nothing is filed, signed or paid') is consistent with the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and output before the caveats, and every clause carries information (statuses, marks, limits). It is dense to the point of being a single run-on chain, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and a nested input object, the description carries the return-shape burden well: package contents, marks, source URLs, both failure statuses, and the watermark condition are all stated. An agent knows what it will get back and what disqualifies a request.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining what the formats actually yield (Markdown by default, optional DOCX/PDF base64 and structured JSON). The input object's contract is deferred to the operation's own input_schema, which is a reasonable pointer but adds little beyond the schema text.

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 an operation') and immediately defines what the call produces: a validated, filled document package with checklist marks and source URLs. That is far more precise than a sibling like fill_template, though the contrast with fill_template is left implicit rather than named.

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 clearly bounds usage — standard templates only, no case assessment, no legal advice, nothing filed/signed/paid — and routes the authorisation step to official_route. What is missing is an explicit 'use this instead of fill_template when...' statement, so the choice among siblings still requires inference.

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