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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: the intent 'settles by x402 on peptides-x402.ai', which tells the agent the downstream settlement mechanism. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency behavior, or failure modes, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds two pieces of contextual information. It is compact and readable, though the mention of 'reason_code + rule_set_version' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations in the description. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the agent cannot determine what values to pass for presentation_id, decision_id, quantity, tenant, or ship_to. The workflow context ('after the gate') is helpful but insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'reason_code + rule_set_version' as carried by the intent, but these are not even parameters in the schema. The actual parameters (presentation_id, quantity, decision_id, tenant, ship_to) are not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 description states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('order intent'), and adds meaningful context: it is for a 'cleared item after the gate' and carries 'reason_code + rule_set_version'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gate_transaction and search_cleared_items, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 phrase 'after the gate' implies a sequencing condition—this tool should be used after gate_transaction has cleared an item. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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