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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: no charge, no customer notification, draft-update-via-order_id semantics, a credential-handling warning, and an enumeration of what is returned. It does not address idempotency edge cases or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then prerequisite, then inputs, then return shape, then constraints — a strong ordering with no filler sentences. Every sentence earns its place, including the short trailing constraint about credentials and non-charging.

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?

With no output schema, the description competently describes the return payload (price net, delivery, deliverables, exclusions, unanswered questions, post-payment requests) and warns about sensitive inputs. For a 6-parameter tool with nested objects, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries parameter meaning; the description's summary ('task, answers to questions_before_order by question id, and contact details') largely restates it. The one genuinely useful addition is the note that all questions_before_order must be answered, which reinforces the schema's constraint.

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+resource ('Create or update a draft order') scoped to 'one package of a The2410 microservice,' and implicitly distinguishes itself from create-checkout-tool by noting it does not charge. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing rule ('Use after get-service-tool, once the customer has chosen a package') and an update path ('To change or complete a draft, call again with the returned order_id'). It stops short of explicitly naming create-checkout-tool as the next step for payment, so the handoff to the sibling is only implied by 'does not charge.'

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