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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: duplicate orders are rejected with the existing order id returned, and a single supplied address is copied into the other. It omits auth/permission requirements and any failure modes beyond duplicates.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the operation, with each clause carrying a distinct rule (required items, address fallback, folder default, duplicate handling, endpoint). No 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 a 15-parameter nested-object write with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is required, key defaults, an automatic side effect, and duplicate/error behavior including the id returned. An agent could call it correctly without further documentation.

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?

With 73% schema coverage and 15 parameters, the description adds real meaning the schema does not: folder_id omission defaults to the first folder, the address-copy fallback, and the name/company requirement. It still does not touch several money/status fields (tax_total, shipping_total, checkout_data), leaving them to the schema text.

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 ('add a new order to the store') and labels the operation type up front with 'WRITE:'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like orderdesk_update_order and orderdesk_move_orders.

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 concrete preconditions (at least one item; a name or company in one of the addresses) and the folder_id omission rule, so an agent knows what a valid call requires. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_order for existing orders, so routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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