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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses side effects: records buyer/programme/products, returns confirmation, opens a Corporate Store if products supplied, and explicitly states it does NOT place orders, take payment, or contact the buyer—a person reviews it.

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?

Description is reasonably concise (around 100 words) and front-loaded with the core action, followed by clarifying exclusions and usage condition. Some redundancy with schema descriptions but overall well-structured.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: explains purpose, side effects, what happens after submission (human review), and mentions the return of store_url. No missing context needed to call it correctly.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., items sourced from search_products or generate_event_program). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (submit a programme request) and the resource (named-account desk), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the only write tool and listing what it does NOT do (place order, begin production, etc.).

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?

Provides explicit usage condition ('Use once the buyer has chosen products or a programme and wants to proceed') and contrasts with read-only sibling tools, making it obvious when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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