Submit an order inquiry (demo)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'This is a demo: nothing is persisted or transacted' is a critical, non-obvious behavioral disclosure that prevents an agent from expecting real persistence. It also mentions the return of a reference. However, it does not describe validation behavior or the reference format.

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, front-loads the purpose, and wastes no words. The demo warning is a necessary addition and is placed effectively. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of guidance. It explains the demo side effect and that a reference is returned, but it does not clarify parameter semantics, response structure, or when this is appropriate relative to sibling tools. This is insufficient for reliable invocation beyond a trivial case.

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% and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters. While names like 'name', 'contact', and 'details' are self-explanatory, the optional 'date' field and expected formats or semantics are left completely unspecified, adding little beyond the schema's property list.

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: 'Capture a demo custom-order inquiry' and the output: 'return a reference.' It names the specific resource (custom-order inquiry) and the verb (capture/submit), distinguishing it from the sibling tools that check availability or retrieve menus.

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 when to use the tool (to submit a demo custom-order inquiry) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like check_custom_order_availability. The demo caveat provides some context but no direct comparison with siblings.

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