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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 8-order cap and that 'say' is optional, but says nothing about timing/deadlines, whether orders can be resent or overridden, failure behavior, or the role of the token.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The only waste is that the second sentence offloads essential information to another tool rather than stating it.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undefined nested 'orders' structure, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what a valid order looks like or what a successful submission returns without opening a different tool.

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 coverage is only 40%. Description adds the 8-item cap for 'orders' and frames 'say' as optional, but 'orders' items are bare objects with no inner schema and no description anywhere, so the single most important parameter is undocumented. Token is also unexplained. The deferral to 'rules' leaves a major 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?

The description names a verb ('give/send orders') and a resource ('orders') and bounds it at 8, so the core action is inferable. But it never states the game context ('war') that all the siblings share, and it defers the actual content of an order to 'rules', leaving the purpose only partially pinned down.

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 only routing instruction is 'See rules for the order list', which points at another tool rather than saying when to call this one versus siblings like join_war, start_war, or get_state. The implicit sequencing (submit after joining/starting a war) is left entirely to inference.

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