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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description carries and adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the order reserves no stock and posts nothing to accounting, totals/taxes are server-computed, and the arithmetic identity Unleashed's validation enforces. This is exactly the side-effect and validation disclosure an agent needs for a write tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the single most important fact (creates a DRAFT/Parked order). The dense middle sentence earns its length by defining computed fields and the validation invariant; the trailing endpoint reference is short and useful for debugging.

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 write tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers behavior, side effects, and validation well. The remaining gap is that it never indicates what the call returns (e.g. the generated order number/ID), which an agent would need for a follow-up step.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful context that the SubTotal/TaxTotal/Total fields are computed and need not be supplied, but it does not clarify any individual input parameter beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (sales order) plus the exact resulting state (DRAFT, status Parked), which is more than a generic 'create' and cleanly separates it from the get_/list_ siblings. An agent knows exactly what object will exist after the call and in what state.

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?

The text explains the workflow context — the order is parked and 'a person places or completes it in Unleashed' — which implies this is the first step of a two-step human-in-the-loop process. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition (e.g. vs. quotes or a direct invoice path), so guidance 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.