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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add one piece of genuinely new context — the admin-only authorization requirement — but discloses nothing about what reordering destroys or how partial lists are handled.

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 and free of padding, so it is efficient. The size is appropriate but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing — the little text present does minimal work.

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 mutating reorder operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is missing essentially everything an agent needs: whether packet_ids defines the full new order, error/validation behavior, and how idempotency interacts with repeated calls. Only the admin constraint is covered.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. Critically, it never explains that packet_ids is an ordered array nor whether it must be the complete set or a partial reorder, and it says nothing about request_id or idempotency_key semantics.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

'Admins only' states a permission prerequisite but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The distinction between this reorder and its list/create/archive/update siblings is left entirely to inference.

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