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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the hidden side effects: moving runs destination-folder rules that can send e-mail or call fulfillment services, and it writes a history entry. It also states the return value (each order's previous folder). This is exactly the extra context the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations cannot convey.

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: operation class first, side effects second, parameter constraint third, with the HTTP endpoint as a trailing tag. No filler and every sentence carries load-bearing information.

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, yet the description still names the return value and enumerates the consequential side effects of the destination folder's rules, which is the main risk an agent needs to weigh before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent write.

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 parameter meanings are already documented, but the description adds the non-obvious cross-parameter constraint that the two destination parameters are mutually exclusive and exactly one is required — information the JSON schema cannot express. Only the 100-item cap and id semantics are left to the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope ('WRITE: move one or more orders to another folder'), immediately distinguishing it from read/list siblings and even labeling the operation class. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

States the mutual-exclusion rule ('pass exactly one of destination_folder_id or destination_folder_name') and points to orderdesk_get_store for resolving folder names, which is real routing guidance. It doesn't state when *not* to move orders or name an alternative tool for related operations, so it stops short of a 5.

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