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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about the precise operational scenario (hold child re-split), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the original hold child is removed or modified, or any irreversibility beyond the annotation. That leaves some gaps, but the description is not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scenario clarification and an explicit exclusion. No wasted words; the [DEMO] tag is a minor non-semantic appendage that doesn't detract.

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?

The description is complete enough for a specialized continuation operation, clearly explaining the split scenario and pointing to the correct sibling for normal cases. The extensive schema and output schema cover remaining details. It could mention prerequisites or what happens to the original hold order, but this is not essential for selecting and invoking the 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 100% for the two parameters, and the schema includes detailed descriptions for TxnId and Orders, including nested fields. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, 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 clearly states the tool's specific purpose: further splitting an order that has a 'Hold' child, in the specialized restock scenario. It uses a specific verb ('split') and resource ('order'), and explicitly distinguishes it from normal splits by naming the alternative (split_order).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (when a hold child needs to be split after restocking) and when-not-to-use guidance ('Do not use this for normal splits — use split_order instead.'). This fully addresses selection vs. siblings.

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