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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context about the authentication path (local WordPress auth, no REST API keys), but says nothing about side effects (customer emails, stock reduction), return value, or failure behavior — significant gaps for a destructive create operation.

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 core action front-loaded and no filler; the auth detail is placed after the purpose, which is the right ordering.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with an unconstrained nested object and no output schema, the description should clarify the expected orderData shape and what is returned (e.g., the new order ID). Neither is addressed, so an agent can invoke it but cannot predict the payload or the result.

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?

Both parameters carry schema descriptions, but orderData is declared as a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no defined properties, so the schema provides almost no guidance on what fields to send. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions billing address, line items, status, or any required order field, leaving the most important parameter effectively unexplained.

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 and resource ("Creates a WooCommerce order") and adds an implementation note about how it is executed. The noun "order" naturally separates it from the note/refund/meta siblings, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from wc_create_order_note or wc_create_order_refund.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer wc_update_order for existing orders, or when a note/refund tool is the correct choice instead. The only procedural hint ("Call list_sites first") lives in the schema for site_id, not in the description.

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