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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behaviour, so the description only needs to add side-effect detail. It does: the customer may later receive SMS/e-mail updates depending on account notification settings, and the server geocodes the address unless address_lat/address_lon are supplied. It does not address duplication/idempotency of the same order number, which is the one meaningful remaining unknown.

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?

Four sentences, purpose and scope front-loaded before side effects and the confirmation instruction. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the closing restatement of address/client being required duplicates the schema's required array.

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 25-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations, the description covers scope, side effects, and the confirmation workflow well. Because there is no output schema, it could usefully say what comes back (e.g. an order id) and whether resubmitting the same order number creates a duplicate, but the critical calling information is present.

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 baseline is 3; every one of the 25 fields, including the goods line object, is already documented in the schema. The description adds only two things beyond it: which fields are required (already in the schema's required list) and the geocode-skip behaviour of address_lat/address_lon (already stated on those properties). Marginal added value.

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 ('Create ONE REAL unscheduled order in Track-POD') with the backing endpoint (POST /Order), and explicitly delimits scope by saying it does not create or optimise routes. An agent can distinguish this from route tools and all read-only siblings without opening any 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 an actionable precondition ('Confirm the details with the user first') and situational framing ('ready to be planned into a route by a dispatcher'). No alternative tool is named, but there is no sibling create tool to route against, so the omission is minor.

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