Send synthetic orders

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds behavioral context: orders are POSTed, the result reports the seed, and replay is possible by passing the seed back. This clarifies side effects and error-path drilling, which is useful for an agent.

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 concise sentences and a follow-up sentence, all front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant text; every sentence adds operational value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values likely are covered there. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, mode distinctions, and replay behavior, making it complete for a low-complexity tool with three optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must and does explain parameters: 'count' is the number of orders, 'mode' (seeded/simple) has usage semantics, and 'seed' is returned for replay. All three parameters are meaningfully covered in natural language.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and 'POST' with a clear resource ('orders') and destination ('configured order API'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_target and preview_order, which likely handle other aspects of order workflow.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('Use `seeded` for traffic that should be accepted and `simple` to drill the API's rejection path'). It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools, but the purpose is so distinct that no conflict arises.

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