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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the meaningful persistence semantics ('until changed'). It does not say that setting new orders replaces or discards the previous ones, nor what happens on invalid input, which is the behavior an agent most needs given the destructive hint.

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 front-loaded sentences with a useful illustrative example; nothing is wasted. The 'under 500 characters' note lightly duplicates the schema's maxLength, but it reinforces the constraint where the agent will actually read it.

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?

This is a low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, and the description covers what the orders do, how long they last, and the expected format. The only real gap is the undocumented ownerKey, which is thin but not disqualifying at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does a good job on 'orders' — plain language, under 500 characters, plus a concrete example of the expected phrasing — but 'ownerKey' is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving a required auth-like parameter unexplained.

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 (set the head of state's standing orders) and clarifies the defining trait: they persist every turn until changed, which implicitly separates it from per-turn siblings like submit_orders. It never names those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'follows every turn until changed' implies this is for durable strategy rather than a one-off turn submission, and the example models the intended style of input. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to validate_orders for checking orders before committing them.

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