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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key side effects: the world moves, rivals act, rackets pay, heat decays, and a new state is returned. It also states the per-crew/day constraint and empty-order passing behavior. It does not explicitly address persistence, reversibility, or error behavior.

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 a one-sentence purpose, followed by compact parameter details and edge-case behavior. The long actionType list earns its place because no enum exists in the schema.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it provides a strong end-to-end picture: input structure, valid actions, target source, empty-day behavior, and return content (events + new state). Minor gaps remain around session_id and error/validation behavior.

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 0%, so the description compensates by fully specifying the orders item structure (agentId, targetId, actionType), enumerating all actionType values, and explaining that targetId comes from syndicate_state lists. It also explains empty-list semantics, though session_id is not described beyond its schema title.

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 one day of orders'—and resource, and tells the agent the tool returns the resolved day with events and new state. This clearly distinguishes the action from read-only siblings like syndicate_state and syndicate_leaderboard.

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?

Explains the intended invocation: submit one day's orders, with one order per crew member, and that an empty orders list passes the day. It also routes the agent to syndicate_state for valid targetId values, but doesn't explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use alternatives.

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