create_standing_order

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: it costs nothing to create, each firing runs ask_analyst and is metered, a deterministic pre-pass avoids charging for quiet periods, and it returns projected_monthly_tokens_max for cost visibility. It also notes plan limits on cadence and order count, and that errors indicate which limit was hit.

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 concise yet information-dense, structured to front-load the core function, then explain the cost model, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: function, cost, triggering logic, return value, plan limits, and usage guidance. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining cost implications directly tied to parameters: cadence affects check frequency and plan requirements, and min_new_events / min_geoint_score control when a check fires and thus influences cost. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: putting an area under continuous watch via a question and bounding box, scheduled re-answering, and change-based notifications. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_standing_orders and delete_standing_order by focusing on creation and from immediate-query tools like ask_analyst.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use it when the question is "tell me when this changes" rather than "what is happening right now".' It also explains the cost model, noting that creation is free and metering occurs only when the order fires, which helps users decide when this tool is appropriate.

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