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

The annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description converts that into concrete consequences — nothing is produced or charged in draft mode, and production plus an immediate account charge happen when order_type is "order". That is exactly the "what actually happens" context an agent needs before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent write.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the mode/consequence distinction, then the shipment-method rule plus endpoint. No filler, and the most consequential fact (draft-by-default, no charge) is front-loaded.

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 8-parameter write tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials but omits what the call returns — notably how the agent obtains the created order/draft id it needs to feed into gelato_submit_draft_order. Since there is no output schema, that gap is on the description to close.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the shipmentMethodUid values/default and the order_type meanings. The description restates those same facts (shipment method resolution, default = cheapest) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ("Create an order") and immediately differentiates the two modes it supports: draft (default) versus order_type "order". It also names the sibling tools involved downstream (gelato_submit_draft_order, gelato_quote_order), so an agent can distinguish this from submit_draft_order without opening either schema.

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 clear context for the main branching decision: default draft produces/charges nothing, while order_type "order" starts production and charges immediately. It also tells the agent where a shipmentMethodUid comes from (gelato_quote_order) and what omission means (cheapest). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use submit_draft_order for existing drafts, or avoiding duplicate creation).

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