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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: prices copy at acceptance and freeze on the order, status transitions to accepted, and a draft order is created. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations can't convey. The gap is idempotency — annotations declare idempotentHint=false but the description never says what a repeat call does (duplicate order? error?), which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the pricing consequence, then the state semantics, then an explicit effects line. The rhetorical aside ('that is the whole reason the quote existed') earns its place by motivating the price-freeze rule. No wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers side effects well but not the return payload — an agent doesn't know whether the new draft order id comes back in the response, which it would need to chain into o2c_confirm_order. Otherwise complete for a two-parameter mutation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning — notably po_ref is never mentioned, and there is no hint about what quote_id must reference beyond 'the quoted lines'. 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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Record customer acceptance and raise the sales order from the quoted lines.' It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling o2c_confirm_order by declaring 'acceptance is the customer's act, confirmation is ours.' An agent can route cleanly without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly frames the context of use: customer has said yes to a quote, and the resulting order is a draft awaiting our confirmation. It does not explicitly name o2c_confirm_order as the follow-up tool or state prerequisites (e.g. quote must have been sent), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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