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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is a mutation ('Change'), requires an authentication token, and emphasizes that fileNames must be the full current gallery, which indicates validation behavior. It does not describe error handling on mismatch, but overall provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (purpose, prerequisite, limitation, auth). No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers key contextual aspects: auth requirement, prerequisite call, behavioral limitation, and correct usage. It lacks explicit success/error response details, but for a simple reorder operation this is not critical. Overall, it is more complete than many similar tool descriptions.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by elaborating on the fileNames parameter: it must be the full gallery and a prerequisite call is needed. This reinforces the most critical parameter and provides context not present in the schema, justifying a score above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Change the display order of a Stay's listing or workspace photo gallery.' It uses a specific verb ('reorder'), identifies the resource (Stay photo gallery), and distinguishes itself from siblings like reorderRoomPhotos and uploadStayPhoto by specifying the scope (Stay listing/workspace) and explicitly noting it cannot add or remove photos.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it instructs to call getMyStayPhotos first, and clarifies the tool only reorders and cannot add/remove photos, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for add/remove operations, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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