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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers extensively: it discloses the mutating nature (submits an order), the confirmation gate before invocation, the business rules (reservation requires bank transfer + last-5-digits to become valid, no 7-day return for made-to-order cakes, reschedule one week prior, slot change two days prior, 50% refund on cancellation), and the success output (ticket link with transfer info and QR code). Rich behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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 a single dense paragraph, but given the tool's complexity (11 params, no annotations, multiple business rules and a confirmation obligation), every sentence carries necessary safety or business information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the confirmation checklist, the policy disclosures, the call condition, and the output. No filler, though it is long by necessity.

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?

Given the high complexity (11 params, 9 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is substantially complete: it covers the confirmation gate, all key business policies, and the success return (ticket link). Remaining gaps are minor – failure/error behavior is not described, and the optional message param is unaddressed. It would merit a 5 if error handling and the message param were covered.

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 only 9% (only userConfirmed carries a description), so the description must compensate. It does: the confirmation checklist maps directly onto the parameters – 蛋糕與尺寸→cakeId/variantId, 取貨日期與時段→pickupDate/slotId, 加購→addonIds, 姓名/手機/Email/Instagram→name/phone/email/igHandle. This adds meaning to otherwise undocumented parameters. Minor gap: the optional message parameter is not addressed, preventing a 5.

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 action (代使用者送出訂購申請 – submit an order application on behalf of the user) and equates it to the website form, giving a concrete verb+resource. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings: build_order_link only constructs a link, get_availability checks availability, list_cakes lists products, whereas this tool actually submits the order. Purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 a strong when-to-call gate: '使用者明確同意後才呼叫' (only call after the user explicitly agrees), and enumerates the mandatory pre-confirmation checklist (cake/size, pickup date/slot, add-ons, contact details). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or route to an alternative such as build_order_link for preview/draft use cases. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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