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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent) by disclosing three non-obvious behaviors: stock only decrements on transition into processing/completed, emails are silent unless send_emails=true, and under Royally the call queues for human approval so nothing changes on the site until then. Those are exactly the facts an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then workflow caveats, then the site and Royally notes. The trailing parenthetical "(site: demo.royalplugins.com)" and the appended Royally sentence are slightly awkward placement for important runtime behavior, costing a point on structure.

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 12-param, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts — stock timing, email suppression, approval gating, site scope. It doesn't say what the response contains (e.g., the created order ID) or permission requirements, which would fully close the loop.

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 schema already carries per-param docs and the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by tying status values to stock-decrement timing and send_emails to the New Order email, clarifying behavior rather than restating field descriptions.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Create a WooCommerce order") and immediately names the concrete scenarios (B2B, wholesale, phone orders, manual invoicing), which separates it from the read-side siblings wc_get_orders/wc_get_order and from wc_update_order_status.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts and even a recommended call sequence (create as pending, then transition to processing to trigger stock), which implicitly routes the agent to the update tool. It never names a sibling tool outright or states a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of the top band.

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