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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds the key behavioral trait those annotations miss: a two-phase challenge/response flow requiring the payer's EIP-712 authorization. It notes the challenge is short-lived, which is meaningful context. It could say more about what happens on a second submission, but this is a solid addition beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the flow described second. No filler. It is appropriately sized and would only improve by adding a clause on parameters or prerequisites.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety profile need not be restated. The core purpose and the auth flow are conveyed, but for a tool with a nested authorization object and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves notable gaps about the request payload and orderHandle semantics.

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% across three parameters (request, orderHandle, authorization), a nested object among them, so the description must carry the burden. It only gestures at 'authorization' (EIP-712) and never explains 'request' or 'orderHandle' or how the challenge maps to the authorization fields. Marginal compensation for a significant 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 ('Submit') and resource ('requested customer input for an order'), clearly naming what is being sent and to what. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like daski_get_order_status or daski_buy_outcome, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can place it.

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 gives concrete call-sequence guidance: call once bare to obtain a short-lived challenge, then retry with authorization. That is useful invocation guidance, but it says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites (e.g., an existing order) are required.

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