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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the returned page, route, and reference, the cart-route variant, the no-way-to-be-reached case, and that no buyer PII is sent to AgentFeed. This goes well beyond the input schema.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, trigger, output, next action, privacy constraint, and edge cases. Key information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns; it does (message page, route, reference) and tells the agent exactly what to do with the result. It also covers the important business-specific variants and failure case.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds useful semantics by saying 'what' is the buyer's words and fills the first message field, and by explicitly excluding name/phone from the inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an order or an enquiry with one of these businesses.' It also names what the tool produces (message page, route, reference), which clearly distinguishes it from the browse/search product siblings.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Use it once the buyer has chosen' plus concrete operational constraints ('Hand the buyer order_page', 'Do NOT ask for their name or phone number'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling discovery tools, but the timing and prerequisites make the intended use clear.

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