orders_dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: never moves money, never touches the supplier, the total is the locked price approval binds to, and the API exposes no execute endpoint for these actions. This is unusually strong disclosure of side-effect and safety boundaries.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and return content, then layers safety and next steps. Dense and mostly purposeful, though the 'returns the validated plan only' and 'never executed by the API' points overlap slightly, adding minor redundancy.

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 fully describes the return payload: itemized pricing lines, readiness checklist with reason codes, gating status, and next steps. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces authCodePresent semantics ('raw code is never sent') but adds little syntactic or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (plan) and resource (domain order) with the three actions it covers (register, renew, transfer). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like domains_get_quote or domains_prepare_registration, since it explicitly frames itself as a full multi-action plan in one call.

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?

Gives clear usage context: show the locked price to the human first, and pass authCodePresent:true for transfers. It does not explicitly name when to prefer an alternative sibling (e.g. domains_get_quote) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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