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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint (PATCH to a basket) and the bundle line-item convention, but says nothing about whether assets are appended vs. replaced, whether inventory availability is validated, or how conflicts with already-booked items are handled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the order scope, zero filler. The raw HTTP endpoint in the second sentence is marginal value for an agent but conveys PATCH semantics and the basket resource, so it isn't pure noise.

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 two-parameter write into an order basket, the definition covers the identity of the operation and the bundle syntax, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is still thin on consequences: no statement of success/failure conditions, inventory reservation behavior, or what the caller gets back (no output schema exists).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's '<id>-b' bundle note duplicates what the asset_numbers schema description and pattern already say, adding no new semantics; 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: adding assets (including bundles as '<id>-b') into an *existing* order. That scope word 'existing' is what separates it from create_order or book_order. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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?

Implies the precondition that the order must already exist, which is useful context. But it gives no guidance on when to use this rather than book_order, rent_out_order, or add_order_custom_entry, and no note about what state the order must be in (open vs. booked) for additions to succeed.

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