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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: nothing is charged here, the order is not final until confirmed on zacatrus.es, login is required, droppoint_droppoint must be chosen by the client on the map, and the idempotency mechanic (same key returns the same prepared order) is spelled out rather than left to the idempotentHint flag. Annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true) are consistent with all of this.

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-loads the purpose and output, then layers prerequisites, constraints and the idempotency rule. Dense but every sentence carries operational value; the repeated emphasis on showing the summary/link is slightly redundant but justified by the tool's risk profile.

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?

No output schema is needed because the description states what is returned (resumen con líneas, envío, total, destino, caducidad y enlace). Combined with login, no-charge, stock and idempotency disclosures, an agent has everything required to call this 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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the droppoint_droppoint + address_id interaction for shipping_method, the country store implications, and how idempotency_key should be generated per distinct order. It doesn't cover country or pickup_store semantics in the prose, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Prepara un pedido de Zacatrus') and enumerates exactly what the order contains (productos, dirección o tienda, forma de envío). It is easily distinguished from siblings like checkout_options, prepared_order_status and my_orders, and it also states the output (resumen + enlace de pago).

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to call checkout_options first and confirm with the client, names the sibling tools that supply skus (search_games, get_game, store_stock), and states a clear exclusion set (no preventas, tarjetas regalo ni suscripciones, solo con stock). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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