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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the human review step, expected turnaround, that the customer is emailed immediately, that nothing is charged and no price is agreed, and that an order id and token are returned. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, but the workflow and side-effect transparency is notably strong.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the workflow, billing status, and return values. No sentence is wasted.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return contract (order id and token, and what to do with them) and the side-effect profile. It is nearly complete; only explicit routing relative to siblings is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds essentially nothing about individual input parameters, only the returned id/token, so the 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource — "Opens a request with the shop" — and the title reinforces it. It does not directly name any sibling tool, so differentiation from check_order or escalate_to_human relies on the reader, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

It conveys the workflow (human review, quote within a business day, no charge) which implies when this tool is appropriate, and hints at follow-up via 'attach files and check back'. However, it never states explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or prerequisites for calling it, 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.