validate_order

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral outcomes: making the order official and generating an order number. However, it does not mention whether validation is irreversible, any side effects, or preconditions beyond 'draft', so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys purpose and outcome without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect of validation and the generation of an order number. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that only draft orders are eligible, but overall it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter 'id' (ID of the order), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning or constraints about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 validates a draft order, making it official and generating an order number. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'draft order' distinguishes it from other validate_* tools like validate_invoice.

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 description implies usage for draft orders by explicitly mentioning 'commande brouillon', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives such as validate_invoice or convert_proposal_to_order.

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