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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the returned artifacts (order_id, order_capability, confirmation_url) and stating the human must receive the link, but it omits failure modes, concurrency behavior tied to expected_revision, and why order_capability must be retained.

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?

It is short and dense with no filler, but it is front-loaded with procedural steps instead of the tool's action, and the imperative 'Save order_id...' is agent coaching rather than tool documentation. The parenthetical '(no second code)' is compact and 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?

It partially compensates for the absence of an output schema by naming three return values, which is genuinely helpful for a mutation tool. But with six undocumented parameters, a concurrency-sensitive expected_revision field, and no statement of what the call mutates, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. Only 'final quote' (quote_id) and 'verified email' (human_email) are obliquely referenced; request_id, request_capability, expected_revision, and idempotency_key are never explained, leaving half the required inputs semantically opaque.

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 text reads as a workflow script ('Select the final quote and read the human confirmation link...') rather than a statement of the tool's action; the actual operation (starting an order from a quote) is only inferable from the title. With siblings like create_order and confirm_quote present, no sentence distinguishes this tool from them.

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 hints at a precondition (a verified email, 'no second code'), which is a useful usage cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of any alternative. An agent cannot tell from this why it should call start_order rather than create_order or confirm_quote.

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