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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the mechanism (dividing line items) and positions this as the normal workflow, but does not disclose reversibility or side effects beyond the annotations. This merits a 4 rather than 3 due to the added context.

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 efficiently structured, with the first sentence giving the core purpose and the next two providing usage guidance. However, the trailing '[DEMO]' artifact adds no value and reduces clarity, making a 4 instead of 5.

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, destructive operation, the description is adequate but misses important context about reversibility (e.g., that teapplix_revert_split_order exists) and any preconditions beyond the split_order_cont exclusion. The rich schema and annotations compensate somewhat, but the gap justifies a 3.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters and nested properties. The description does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Split an order into multiple child orders') and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool split_order_cont by naming it and its specialized purpose. The mechanism ('by dividing its line items') adds clarity.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use ('normal split workflow') and when not to ('Do not use split_order_cont — that is a specialized follow-up for orders with "Hold" children'), naming the alternative and the condition for its use.

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