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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety surface is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — closing a process-linked OS automatically completes that process step — but says nothing about side effects (notifications, SLA/checklist triggering mentioned only in the schema), permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key conditional behavior; no filler. It slightly restates the schema's process_step_id note, but overall density is high.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description does not say what is returned (presumably the created OS id needed for follow-up calls like update_field_order_status) nor which fields are required versus optional beyond the schema. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the response.

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 the schema already carries full parameter documentation, including that process_step_id requires process_id and that closing the OS completes the step. The description only adds the 'standalone is the common case' framing, which is marginal over 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?

States a specific verb and resource: creates a field service order (OS) for a contact, with a clear note on the two modes (process-linked vs standalone). It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as create_process or the service-order tools (get_service_order/list_service_orders vs list_field_orders), which leaves a small ambiguity an agent must resolve from names alone.

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 description explains the branching semantics of process_id/process_step_id and notes that omitting them is the common case, which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs sibling tools (e.g. create_process, create_deal) and no prerequisites such as the contact having to exist first.

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