fiken_create_order_confirmation_counter

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms a write operation ('Creates'). However, no additional behavioral details are given, such as whether the counter is idempotent, what happens if it already exists, or any side effects. Beyond the annotation, the description adds no value.

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 sentence, which is slightly concise but critically under-specified. While brevity is valued, it omits essential information about parameters and usage, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, siblings with related counters), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the 'counter' concept, parameter semantics, or when to invoke this tool vs. just retrieving the counter. The agent lacks the context needed for correct 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 schema has one integer parameter 'value' with zero description coverage (0%). The tool description fails to explain the parameter's meaning or purpose, such as whether it sets the initial counter value. This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's role.

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 specifies the verb 'creates' and the resource 'order confirmation number counter', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_order_confirmation_counter' by indicating creation, but lacks clarity on what a 'counter' represents or why 'first' is significant.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a counter vs. using an existing one). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a company context, or that it should be called before creating order confirmations. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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