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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a first unauthenticated call returns a short-lived challenge, then a second call requires the payer's EIP-712 authorization. It could still say what happens on failure or replay.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the usage and sequencing guidance, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 a nested auth object and an output schema, the description correctly covers the essential two-step challenge flow, which is the highest-risk behavior. However, with 0% schema description coverage on a three-parameter call, it leaves the agent without guidance on constructing the request or the authorization payload, and references "inputRequest" without defining it.

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 0% and the parameters include a nested authorization object with nine required fields, so the description must compensate. It names authorization and EIP-712 but never explains orderHandle, request, message, or requestId semantics, nor how the authorization fields are sourced. Only marginal meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Send a support request for an order"), which is clearly distinct from the read/query siblings like daski_get_order_status and daski_list_my_orders. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it falls just short of the 5 rubric.

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?

It states the trigger condition clearly ("when the user confirms that every value an inputRequest shows is correct") and prescribes the calling sequence. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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