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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of explaining mutation. It does state it creates an order and returns order number and invoice link. It also notes delivery is pickup or TC upon agreement, which is a conditional behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like cart modification, idempotency, or failure modes, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return value is stated. It is concise and structured effectively.

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 tool has 11 parameters with 5 required and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and return but does not explain any of the required legal/business fields (INN, KPP, legal address), the meaning of dry_run, or any error handling. Given the tool's complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 only 9%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions cart_id (via 'корзине') and delivery (pickup/TC) but leaves the five required fields (company, inn, email, phone, cart_id) and other optional ones (kpp, contact, legal_address, comment) unexplained beyond their names. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Оформить заказ' – place an order) on a specific resource ('корзине' – cart) with payment method and target audience. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like build_cart (builds cart) and get_order (reads order) by focusing on creation for legal entities/IE with invoice payment.

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 provides context: for legal entities/IE without registration, with payment by invoice. This implies the use case and differentiates from other tools that might require registration or other payment methods. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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