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

Annotations already say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not: no charge occurs here, the output is a completion link, and final steps happen on plyparts.com. It could be stronger by warning that repeated calls may create duplicate carts, given idempotentHint=false.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loading the core action and the no-charge caveat. Every sentence adds useful information and 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?

For a complex ordering tool with 36 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return link and the two input modes. It still leaves unclear which parameter combinations are required for each template or file mode, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation despite the rich schema descriptions.

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 97%, so the schema already explains nearly every one of the 36 parameters in detail. The description only broadly groups inputs into built-part mode (template, sizes, options) and file mode (path, options), which is useful but adds limited per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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: putting a part into a ply cart and returning a link to finish the order on plyparts.com. It distinguishes two input modes (built part vs file), which helps separate it from make_part and price_file, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives usage context for built parts versus files, and clarifies that shipping, payment, and engineer review happen later. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of price_file, make_part, or price_model_link, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a ply path from price_file.

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