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

Adds real side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations: the order reserves stock and appears in the sales pipeline, and no email is sent. This is the kind of consequence an agent needs before a non-idempotent write. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements, failure modes, or what is returned.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the identity and the not-an-invoice clarification, then prerequisites, then id sources, then the endpoint. No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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?

Covers the mutation's consequences and the prerequisite lookups well for a 12-parameter write tool. The notable gap is that, with no output schema, the description never says whether the call returns the new order id or total, which matters for chaining.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the GUID formats and the source list tools. The description adds only the general instruction to fetch ids from the list tools, which largely duplicates the schema notes. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a customer order') and immediately disambiguates from the nearest confusing sibling by clarifying it is a pedido, not an invoice, and that nothing is stamped or emailed. An agent can tell exactly what this produces versus binderp_get_invoice or quote tools.

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 concrete preconditions ('confirm client, prices and quantities first') and explicitly routes the agent to the lookup tools for each id (binderp_list_clients, binderp_get_client_addresses, binderp_list_catalog, binderp_list_products). It does not spell out when to choose an order over a quote/purchase order, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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