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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required OAuth scope (order:prepare), that buyer/order state changes, and that the confirmation link is short-lived. The explicit 'does not submit it' also prevents the agent from mistaking this for a terminal action.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the critical user-approval constraint, then auth and state effects. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, approval requirement, auth scope, and state mutation. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description offers no parameter detail because there is none to give; it correctly focuses on side effects instead.

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 ('prepare') and resource ('exact current order summary and a short-lived browser confirmation link'), and explicitly bounds the scope against the obvious sibling by saying 'this does not submit it.' An agent can distinguish this from submit_order without opening either 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?

It conveys clear context for use – the buyer must personally approve the summary before submission – which implies this is the pre-submission step. However, it never names the alternative (submit_order) or states explicit when-not conditions, leaving the routing to inference.

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