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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that nothing is charged automatically, that the team must confirm pricing before production, that a portal personal token is required, and that only the customer's own order ids are accepted. This goes well beyond the schema, though it does not detail response shape or error conditions.

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 with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical workflow caveat, auth requirement, and input constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, auth, and input restrictions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, with only minor omissions around response details and failure behavior.

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 orderId and changes clearly. The description adds a little context by reinforcing that changes are optional and that order ids must come from my-orders, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific action: asking the team to repeat a customer's own past order, optionally with changes. It then clarifies this creates a repeat-order enquiry rather than a direct charge, which distinguishes it clearly from order-placing or quote-request 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?

The description implies when to use the tool by focusing on repeating past orders and constraining order ids to the customer's my-orders list. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as request-quote or track-order, so the agent must infer the exact boundary between this and related sibling tools.

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