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

The destructiveHint=true annotation is generic and the description adds genuine context that the created entity is an estimate-stage work order, not a completed one. However, it omits who can create orders, whether the resulting order id is returned, and any prerequisite lookups, so behavioral coverage is only moderate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the estimate semantics; the endpoint mapping is minor filler but the rest earns its place.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no readOnly/destructive nuance beyond a hint, the description covers the core action but leaves the return value, the all-optional parameter set, and prerequisite ID lookups for the schema and sibling tools to handle.

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% and each of the 10 properties is documented in the schema itself, including cross-references to sibling tools for locationId and workflowStatusId. The description adds only the implication that customer and vehicle are essential, despite the schema marking nothing required, so 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 ('Open a new work order') plus an important scope clarification: it begins as an estimate, not a finalized order. The customer+vehicle scoping distinguishes it from shopmonkey_create_appointment, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Add services in the Shopmonkey UI' is a useful constraint implying services cannot be attached through this call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to create an order versus an appointment or how to obtain customerId/vehicleId first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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