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

The description discloses the key behavioral outcome: it creates only a draft, does not complete payment or consents, and returns a resumeUrl plus accepted/rejected and missing-field information. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation; no contradiction exists.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core action, output, and caveat are all front-loaded. Every sentence contributes behavioral or workflow information.

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?

The description covers the main return payload and the user's required next step, compensating for the absent output schema. It does not detail the workflow ordering relative to get_form_fields or create_certificate_order, but the schema and sibling tools provide enough context for a competent agent.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the propertyType enum and the fields array with path/value semantics. The description reinforces the general purpose but adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a DRAFT energy-certificate order' and immediately distinguishes it from a placed order, which separates it from create_certificate_order. It also names the key output (resumeUrl), so the agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 description gives clear context: this tool creates a draft that the user must finish on the website, and it explicitly states 'A draft is NOT a placed order.' It does not name an alternative tool or spell out when to prefer create_certificate_order or update_draft, but the exclusion is clear enough.

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