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

With readOnlyHint=false the annotations signal a write, and the description usefully clarifies the blast radius: it does not charge a card or the wallet, requires no sign-in, and returns a link rather than completing the transaction. It also discloses return fields (monthly_per_user, monthly_total). It stays silent on idempotency, which the annotations flag as 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the return value and the pricing caveat. No filler, though the opening enumeration of six order kinds is dense.

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 19-parameter, one-required-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (no charge, returns a link, pricing fields) but leaves most conditional parameters unexplained, so an agent would have to guess how to populate them.

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 42% across 19 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden, and it only glosses the `kind` categories plus the pricing outputs. Parameters like queue, menu, recording, ai_receptionist, phone_numbers, number_type and who_answers are left undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb+resource (prepare an order) and enumerates the order kinds, which map cleanly onto the `kind` enum. It also states the concrete outcome (a Widely link to finish). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the many quote_* siblings it sits beside, so the reader has to infer the relationship from 'after the price is known'.

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 phrase 'after the price is known' implies a sequencing rule (quote first, prepare second) but never names the alternative tools such as quote_number or quote_esim, nor states when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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