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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: money is charged to a prepaid wallet, a driver is dispatched, free cancellation only within Lalamove policy, expired quotations are refused, and the confirm_total is server-checked against the quotation. The 'placed once, do not retry blindly' note directly reinforces idempotentHint=false with an actionable recovery path.

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 the two facts that matter most (write, spends money), then preconditions, then failure handling. Six short clauses, no filler; even the endpoint reference is compact and does not displace the decision-critical content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never says what a successful call yields (e.g. an order id usable with lalamove_get_order / lalamove_track_order) — the one thing an agent needs immediately after placement. Everything else a caller must know for a 7-parameter, nested-object, money-spending tool is covered.

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 adds real cross-field semantics the schema cannot express — confirm_total must equal the quotation's total and is validated server-side, and recipients are matched positionally to the quotation's drop-off stops in stop order. The confirm boolean gate is also restated with its user-consent condition.

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 ('order a delivery from a quotation') and anchors it to the sibling that must precede it (lalamove_create_quotation), plus the underlying POST /v3/orders. The leading 'WRITE, SPENDS MONEY' capsule distinguishes it instantly from read-only siblings like lalamove_get_quotation.

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 an explicit precondition ('Only call it after the user has seen the quotation price and said yes'), an explicit failure-recovery route ('do not retry after an error without checking lalamove_get_order'), and warns about expiry. It also names what a cancellation costs, which is the alternative the agent would otherwise improvise.

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