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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: validation occurs before payment link creation, order_token is shown once, orders auto-confirm after payment, and unpaid orders expire in 72 hours. It lacks failure mode details but is substantially transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that pack essential details: purpose, validation flow, return shape, token handling, and expiry. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has a nested address object, no output schema, and five params, so the description needs to explain return values and usage flow. It does so thoroughly, covering the order object fields, payment_url usage, token persistence requirement, auto-confirmation, and 72-hour expiry. Minor omission: nothing about error cases or cancellation behavior beyond token requirement.

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 80%, so the schema handles most parameter documentation. The tool description adds a bit by emphasizing the upload must be validated and referencing the payment_url output, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 'copies' param or add deeper field semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('print order'), and specific precondition ('validated upload'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_upload and validate_pdf. It also outlines the scope by mentioning the validation step before payment link generation.

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?

It implies use after validation by saying 'for a validated upload' and explains next steps (giving payment_url, saving order_token). It references sibling tools get_order and cancel_order for token usage, but does not explicitly state exclusions or when to use this tool over alternatives.

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