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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true; the description carries the rest, disclosing real side effects (reserved reserves the items and assigns an order number) and an unrecoverable action (canceling cannot be undone). It does not state whether the status change itself is reversible or what auth/permissions are needed, but it adds substantial context beyond the annotation.

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 but front-loaded and every clause carries information (transition map, revert rule, cancel exclusion). The trailing 'Booqable: POST /api/4/order_status_transitions' is endpoint trivia that an MCP caller cannot use, a minor waste.

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 state machine, constraints, and side effects well for a destructive mutation with no output schema. It leaves out what is returned on success (updated order vs. confirmation) and any failure modes such as an invalid from/to pair or shortage rejection.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by giving the valid transition graph, the revert requirement for started/stopped, and the reserving-time purpose of confirm_shortage. It adds genuine transition semantics the enum list alone does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Move an order between statuses') with an explicit state graph (new→draft, draft→reserved, stopped→archived). It never names the closest sibling, booqable_update_order, so an agent must infer why a status change must go through this tool rather than a generic field update.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: revert: true for backward moves, started/stopped only valid with revert, and an explicit exclusion (canceling is not offered because Booqable cannot un-cancel). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for any case, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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