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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return fields (order id, number, status, sku_url) in the absence of an output schema, and mentions the draft mode, but says nothing about permissions, irreversibility of creates, or how the idempotency_key interacts with the declared idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences, action front-loaded followed by return value. No wasted words.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with a 60% schema coverage and no output schema, return values are covered in the description, but required-field prerequisites, mode selection, and the interrelationship of idempotency with the non-idempotent annotation are left unaddressed.

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?

Ten parameters at 60% schema coverage; the description adds only the loose notion of 'draft or with line items', which maps indirectly to order_status and sales_order_lines. It does not clarify required fields (order_status, order_date, currency_code) or any of the four undocumented parameters.

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 + resource ('Creates a sales order') and adds scope detail about draft-vs-line-item modes. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_purchase_order or create_product, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. account/currency requirements), and no mention of alternatives such as create_purchase_order. The only hint is the implicit 'draft needs no lines' mode, which is not framed as guidance.

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