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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing that no stock is reserved, nothing is posted to accounting, and that computed totals must satisfy Unleashed's validation equation. It also cites the underlying endpoint (POST /SalesOrders), which helps an agent reason about side effects. Minor tension with the destructiveHint=true annotation, since the text emphasizes that nothing is committed or altered.

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 core purpose and status, followed by the non-obvious side-effect disclaimers, then the validation math, then the endpoint. Dense but every sentence carries information; the validation-formula sentence is a bit heavy but earns its place for avoiding 400s.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer: draft/parked semantics, no stock or accounting side effects, and the computed-field requirements needed to pass validation. It does not cover error cases (e.g., unknown customer/warehouse codes, duplicate order numbers) or auth expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters with formats and defaults. The description adds the totals/validation relationship (SubTotal, TaxTotal, Total) but does not elaborate on any individual parameter semantics, 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 (Create) and resource (DRAFT sales order) plus its exact resulting status (Parked), which immediately distinguishes it from the read/list siblings and from the other create tools (customer, product). An agent knows exactly what entity this produces 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?

Explains the operative context: this produces a parked draft that reserves no stock and posts nothing to accounting, and that a person places or completes it later in Unleashed. It effectively tells the agent this is not the tool for finalizing an order, but it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit when-not conditions.

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