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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the retailer is notified, Faire emails the retailer that the order is processing, per-call confirmation is default, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These side-effect and auth disclosures are exactly what a mutation tool should surface.

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, but there is notable redundancy: 'set the scheduled ship date' is repeated as 'Accepts one new order with a scheduled ship date,' and 'The retailer is notified' is repeated as 'Faire emails the retailer that the order is processing.' Two sentences could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: what changes, the notification consequence, confirmation behavior, and the authorization requirement. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% with both parameters fully documented (order_id sourced from list_orders, ship_by as a date). The description reinforces the ship-date concept but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Accept a new order') plus the key side effect ('set the scheduled ship date'), which distinguishes it from faire_get_order, faire_list_orders and faire_add_shipment. The core purpose is unmistakable, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use condition: 'Replacement orders are not covered by Faire's auto-accept, so use this tool for them.' This tells the agent exactly which case requires manual acceptance. It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use clause, but the guidance is clear.

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