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

Rich disclosure beyond the annotations: 'Exact retries are safe; conflicting tracking is rejected', all USDC stays in escrow, the token is a capability and not authentication, and explicit limits (120 USDC, 64 orders, 2 MiB, 24-hour expiry) plus isolation from production custody/dispute records. This far exceeds what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone convey.

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 core action and required inputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, and most subsequent clauses carry real information. It is dense and leans on disclaimer clauses, but little is pure padding.

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?

For a nested-object mutation with no output schema and no annotation-adjacent explanation, the description covers escrow behavior, idempotency, limits, and isolation well. It only lightly implies the resulting state ('Marks shipped') without describing the return payload, but that is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names all parameters and the tracking sub-structure. It adds genuine meaning for order_token (bearer capability, not merchant/buyer auth) but gives no per-field detail on the regex patterns, length bounds, or the const simulation=true, leaving much of the schema self-documenting only.

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 (Record) and resource (simulated shipment against a funded boutique order) and enumerates the inputs (order_id, bearer order_token, tracking {carrier, tracking_number}). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wever_boutique-create-order and wever_boutique-confirm-delivery.

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 clearly frames the context for use (simulation against a funded order) and gives exclusions ('Rejects payment headers and simulation=false', 'Simulation only, no real funds'). However, it does not explicitly name or route to sibling alternatives (e.g., real-money-acceptance or confirm-delivery), so the when-vs-alternative guidance is implied rather than stated.

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