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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description explains that a case is created for a human support team who decide and reply by email, that identity is verified via email plus postcode or an EC order number, and that it targets the same AI Brewer assistant as the website. That is substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the case-creation behavior and exclusions before moving to authentication and conversation chaining. It is dense but each sentence adds a distinct fact; only the closing line about the reply being the AI Brewer's complete answer is slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (the AI Brewer's complete answer plus a conversationId), and it covers identity prerequisites for a mutation tool. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the case submission can fail after the message is sent or what happens on invalid verification.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: message is defined as the customer's own words, and conversationId is explained as absent on the first call and returned by each result to continue the same conversation across the order tools. This is exactly the guidance the bare schema lacks.

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 verb and resource: it passes a damaged, missing, wrong or late order to the support team as a case. It also draws a hard boundary (no refunds, credits or replacements), which separates it from siblings like cancel_order or check_order despite not naming them directly.

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 problem categories (damaged, missing, wrong, late) clearly define when to use it, and the 'does not issue refunds' clause tells the agent what this tool will not accomplish. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so routing between report_order_problem and cancel_order is left implicit.

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