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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description makes the consequence concrete (calling twice creates two orders) and supplies a remediation step, plus the Extensiv-side requirement that billing_code, carrier and mode be present. It stops short of covering permissions, failure behavior, or what a successful response contains, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with WRITE and the operation, followed by risk, prerequisites, and endpoint in descending priority — an agent can act on the first sentence. The semicolon-chained clause structure is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is 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?

For an 11-parameter nested write with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts well: non-idempotency, required Extensiv fields, and the dependency graph to sibling lookup tools. The main omission is the return value (e.g. the created order id or reference), which an agent needs to confirm success or chain to extensiv_get_order.

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; the description earns above that by mapping parameters to their sources (customer_id, facility_id, SKU list, carrier/billing_code/mode from extensiv_list_carriers), which the schema only partially repeats. Optional fields such as notes, shipping_notes and account are left to the schema, which is reasonable given full coverage.

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?

Opens with an explicit mode marker ("WRITE:") and a specific verb+resource: submit a new outbound order for a customer and facility, with the physical consequence (warehouse picks and ships). This is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like extensiv_list_orders and from extensiv_cancel_order.

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?

Names the exact prerequisite lookups: ids from extensiv_list_customers, extensiv_list_facilities, SKUs from extensiv_list_items, and billing_code/carrier/mode from extensiv_list_carriers. It also prescribes a pre-call check against extensiv_list_orders for the reference_num, which is an explicit when-to-use/guard condition rather than implied usage.

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