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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: work begins immediately on submission and no charge occurs until the result is accepted, which resolves the agent's main risk question about cost and timing. It does not say what is returned or whether a submission can be cancelled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two facts that most affect a caller's decision (immediate work start, deferred charge). No filler.

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 low-complexity, flat 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ordering semantics and the payment model. It omits what the call returns (an order/deliverable id) and does not point to get_order_status or accept_and_pay as the follow-up step, which would help an agent complete the workflow.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented (brief contents, title, optional deadline, optional formatting notes, department_id from list_departments). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('Order a department deliverable') that an agent can distinguish from the read-only siblings (get_deliverable, get_order_status, list_my_orders) and from accept_and_pay. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the entry point for commissioning work from a department, and the mention of accepting a 'finished result' hints the lifecycle continues in accept_and_pay. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite called out (the department_id source is only in the schema), and no when-not guidance.

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