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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description clarifies that it writes nothing, prices at today's price, optionally varies quantity, and behaves exactly like price_job. It adds auth behavior, geographic scope, and currency/GST context that an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact: side effects, alternatives, geography/pricing, and authentication. There is no repetition or filler.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values; it still tells the agent how to use the result via add_to_cart. It covers preconditions, side effects, alternatives, authentication, and pricing context, leaving no important gap 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: item_id must come from get_order and only where can_reorder is true, and quantity means an alternative quantity priced at today's price. It does not add syntax details beyond the schema, which is fine because the schema is already descriptive.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it turns one job from a past order back into a configuration and prices it at today's price. It explicitly distinguishes itself from price_job, add_to_cart, and request_reorder, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions ('item_id from get_order, where can_reorder is true') and names alternatives with their selecting conditions: add_to_cart for actual cart insertion and request_reorder for jobs priced by Printdash's team. It also states the authentication requirement and what happens when unauthenticated.

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