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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond these by explaining the post-order flow (no payment, manager calls during business hours to confirm dimensions, deadlines, delivery, installation) and stating what is returned (order number and total). It does not address duplicate-submission risk, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource, then payload, then flow, then constraints and return value, with no filler. Slightly dense with multiple clauses but each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return info (order number, total) and the consent/confirmation requirements. It could still note what happens on repeated invocation, but overall it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 high (82%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by grouping pozitsii into product/variant/add-ons/quantity and explicitly calling out 'контакты', matching the required imya/telefon/soglasie/klient_podtverdil fields.

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+resource (places an order in the me-ko.ru store on behalf of the client) and clarifies the item payload by referencing raschet (product, variant, add-ons, quantity). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like raschet (calculation) and zapis_na_zamer (measurement booking) without opening either 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?

Explicit preconditions: call only at the client's request, only after showing the composition and total and receiving a 'yes', and only with personal-data consent. It also rules out payment, making the intended scenario unambiguous.

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