pizza_dryrun

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying it validates and prices, and reinforces safety with 'Safe to call freely' and 'WITHOUT placing it'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, coupon usage, and safety. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter dry-run tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and safety, though it does not detail return values, which is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the coupon parameter, but the description compensates by explaining the coupon is optional, sourced from pizza_specials, and used to test whether it applies. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Validate and price the standing order WITHOUT placing it', using specific verbs and a resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from pizza_order by emphasizing it does not place the order. This differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context: optional coupon from pizza_specials can be tested, and it is safe to call freely. It implies using this instead of pizza_order when you want to check pricing without committing, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the coupon reference.

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