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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the object is saved as a draft, nothing reaches the client until send_change_order, no confirmation prompt is needed, and an API key with app access is required. This is genuine context, not restatement.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every clause about the draft/send separation earns its place. Mild redundancy between 'Not sent until you send it' and 'Nothing reaches the client until send_change_order', which trims it slightly below a perfect score.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: creation semantics, draft-state safety, client visibility timing, cost computation, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it could say more about what a successful call returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the lump_sum effect on client presentation ('the client sees one total instead of the lines') and the line-total formula (quantity times unit cost plus markup). That goes beyond the schema's terse field docs.

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 ('Draft change order on a project') plus the two modes (itemized or lump sum), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_change_order and list_change_orders. An agent can identify the tool and its scope without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative workflow point ('Not sent until you send it', 'Nothing reaches the client until send_change_order') and even resolves the confirmation question ('this tool runs without asking'). It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement, but the routing to send_change_order is clear.

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