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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the order is initially PENDING and kitchen confirmation happens in Dashboard, and menu item names must match facade.menu. Annotations already communicate mutation and non-idempotency; the description enriches that with operational detail.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. The HTTP-equivalent clause is useful but slightly redundant; otherwise each sentence 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?

Given complete schema coverage and the annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs: pending status, kitchen confirmation, and restaurant-facade-only eligibility. It does not describe the response shape, but there is no output schema and the omission is not critical 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the items naming constraint but does not add substantial new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (order) with a clear source ('published restaurant facade menu'). The 'Restaurant facades only' qualifier and 'order' resource distinguish it from siblings like create_reservation.

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?

Gives clear usage context: submitting dine-in/takeaway orders against a published restaurant facade, with an explicit exclusion ('Restaurant facades only'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions beyond facade type, so it falls just short of a 5.

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