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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds materially beyond them: nothing is charged by this call, the private token is shown once and must be kept secret, the payee and exact amount must be paid from the caller's own wallet before expiry, and the connector never holds keys or funds. This is exactly the kind of safety and side-effect context a write-path tool needs.

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 most important facts are front-loaded: purpose, then return values, then payment obligations and limits. It runs long as a single paragraph, and the legal boilerplate ('no returns promised. All sales final...') is lower-value filler for an agent selecting a tool, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so fully (order id, PRIVATE token shown once, payee, exact USDC amount, expiry). Combined with payment mechanics, custody disclaimer, and rate limits, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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 description coverage is 100%, with sku documented as sourced from list_templates and email as an optional receipt address. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of the sku pattern or the email field), so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameters.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a store order for one template') and immediately follows with the concrete artifacts returned (order id, private token, payee, exact Sui USDC amount). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_templates (enumeration) and check_template_order (status lookup).

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 lays out the usage flow well: create the order, then send the exact USDC amount from your own wallet before expiry, implying check_template_order as a subsequent step. It also states the rate limit context ('a few orders per client per hour'). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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