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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious two-phase behavior: the call is a no-op on the order, returning a preview and a confirmation link that only the merchant can act on. This preview/confirmation model is exactly the kind of workflow context annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the key behavioral caveat. The 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' sentence does not earn its place here because the tool has no monetary parameter.

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 usefully covers the return ('a preview of what would change and a confirmation link'), and it clarifies the human-in-the-loop execution model. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note whether repeat calls stack previews.

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 note, append, and orderNumber are already documented, making the baseline 3. The description's only extra claim ('Money is integer minor units') refers to no parameter on this tool and is therefore irrelevant rather than additive.

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 and resource ('Note something on an order'), which scopes it distinctly from the sibling customers_note. It is clear and self-contained, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other order tools (orders_update_shipment, orders_lookup, etc.).

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 explains the workflow that follows a call (preview + confirmation link, merchant-only execution), which implies when the tool is meant to be used. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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