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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — the orders persist every turn until changed — which the agent could not learn from the schema. However, it says nothing about authorization requirements behind ownerKey, overwrite behavior, or what happens if orders are malformed.

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 core purpose, followed by an illustrative example. The example is the most efficient way to convey the expected format and earns its space.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist to offload information, and the description covers the 'orders' parameter well. But the required authorization parameter and the mutation's side effects are unaddressed, so the definition is only adequate for a state-changing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it specifies plain-language prose for 'orders' and reinforces the <500-character bound with a concrete example. The required 'ownerKey' parameter receives no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Set the head of state's standing orders') and adds the persistent-till-changed semantics that implicitly separates it from a per-turn order tool like submit_orders. It never names a sibling, so the differentiation remains 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?

No statement of when to use this versus the nearby alternatives (submit_orders, validate_orders, rewrite_doctrine). The persistence clause hints at standing vs one-shot orders, but the agent is left to infer the routing decision entirely.

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