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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), the description adds important behavioral context: the order is created but payment is deferred, the agent does not pay, and the tool returns specific payment instructions. This is valuable and does not contradict any annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action and return value, the second adds payment behavior and requirements. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core workflow, required fields, and return payload well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explicitly mention returning an order ID for later status lookups, but the payment instructions are clearly enumerated, so this is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 high (83%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description reinforces that customer.email and consent:true are required, but it adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

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 clearly states the tool creates an order ('Založí objednávku') and returns payment instructions, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_design, get_quote, and get_order_status. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context: it creates an order awaiting payment, requires consent, and clarifies that the human pays by bank transfer rather than the agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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