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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false; the description goes far beyond with the crucial fact that the first call performs no write, delete, cancel, or send, and that only the confirm_token call mutates. It adds token lifetime (5 minutes), single-use semantics, rejection on changed order contents, and the anti-pattern that a confirm boolean is ignored — exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded one-liner and step ordering are good, but the two-step flow is explained twice nearly verbatim and "A confirm boolean is ignored" appears twice, so the text is roughly a third longer than needed. The repetition costs clarity on a destructive call where precision matters.

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 helpfully enumerates the first-call return payload (confirmation_required, confirm_token, summary with order_id, line_count, supplier, total, currency). It is complete enough to drive the two-step flow, though it does not say what the successful second call returns or what auth the write requires.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for confirm_token: where it comes from, that it is opaque, bound to each line id and quantity, expires in 5 minutes, and works once. It also warns that a confirm boolean is ignored. order_id is never described beyond being required, leaving a small gap.

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 ("Submit a draft purchase order") and clarifies that submission is a two-step, token-gated operation, which distinguishes it from create_purchase_order and confirm_sales_order in spirit. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-call guidance: first call without confirm_token, then a second call with the same arguments plus the token after an explicit user yes. It also states what invalidates the flow (order changes, token expiry, single use). It does not say when to prefer this over create_purchase_order or receive_purchase_order, so the sibling boundary remains implicit.

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