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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the approval-queue fallback, that the server recomputes quote_id/quote_hash and rejects mismatches, and the no-retry/dedup rule on timeout. These are behavioral traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing and the highest-severity warning (HIGH RISK, confirmation) is front-loaded. The Korean mirror text roughly doubles the length, which is a convention but costs some density.

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 high-risk mutation with no output schema, the description covers confirmation gating, the approval-queue branch, tamper rejection, and duplicate-order avoidance on timeout. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: quote_hash is a tamper guard the server recomputes, user_confirmed gates the write vs. approval queue, and idempotency_key replays the first result. This enriches the semantics of the most consequential parameters beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Create an order') and immediately characterizes the risk class ('HIGH RISK, action=commerce.order'). It implicitly but clearly separates itself from commerce_build_cart (source of the quote) and commerce_order_status (post-timeout polling).

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?

Explicitly says when not to call it ('Do not call it without explicit confirmation from the user'), what happens with user_confirmed=false (approval queue), and names the alternative action on timeout (query commerce_order_status with the same idempotency_key). Prerequisites (quote_id/quote_hash from commerce_build_cart) are also stated.

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