Preview Order Fulfillment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as a safe, non-mutating operation. The description's addition ('Shows what will be shipped') primarily describes the output rather than adding behavioral context like side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Thus, it provides minimal extra transparency beyond the 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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Preview') and immediately clarifies the purpose ('Shows what will be shipped'). Every word adds value, fitting the conciseness criteria perfectly.

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 preview tool with comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and what the output represents. Given that the output schema is absent and the tool is straightforward, the description sufficiently covers the necessary context.

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 fully describes both parameters: operation_id references the source plan, and response_format defines its enum and default. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not, and the baseline for high coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 action (preview) and the resource (a planned order fulfillment), and explicitly indicates what the preview will show ('what will be shipped'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like order_fulfill_execute (which executes) and order_fulfill_plan (which creates the plan), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 within a plan-preview-execute workflow (via the verb 'preview' and the parameter referencing order_fulfill_plan), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is present but only implied, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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