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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency with concrete detail ('the same draftId never creates a second order'). It also discloses downstream behavior beyond annotations: the venue must accept the order before delivery starts, and status is tracked via check_booking_status with the returned orderCode.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then provenance, idempotency, and the tracking hand-off. No filler or restated title text.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (draft source, safe retry, venue acceptance, status tracking) and names the returned orderCode. It omits error/failure cases and any permission or charging prerequisites, which would matter for a write operation.

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 0% and the schema only types draftId as a string, so the description carries the burden by explaining the parameter's provenance (from place_delivery_order or draft_delivery_order) and its retry semantics. That adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it gives no format or validation detail.

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 ('Places a drafted delivery order exactly as drafted') and implicitly distinguishes itself from draft_delivery_order (creates the draft) and place_delivery_order (source of draftId). An agent can tell what this tool finalizes 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?

Explicitly routes the caller by naming the two tools that produce a draftId ('place_delivery_order ... or from draft_delivery_order') and adds a retry-safety note. It does not state when not to use this in favor of place_delivery_order directly, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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