ecount_create_openmarket_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a rate limit and provides a detailed response format with result messages and error conditions. However, it does not mention idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens on partial failures, which would be valuable for a creation tool.

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 efficient, with the main purpose in the first sentence and additional behavioral details in brackets. It includes rate limit and response information without excessive prose. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.

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 complex nested orders array and no output schema, the response format description is essential and provided. The rate limit and mention of pre-registered code add operational context. It lacks explicit error handling or rollback information, but the response format covers result reporting.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that openmarketCode must be pre-registered in ECOUNT and categorizes the order fields (product, orderer/receiver, shipping). This is useful context but does not compensate for the schema's already thorough descriptions.

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?

Purpose is explicitly stated: registering external shopping mall orders (Naver, Coupang) into ECOUNT. The verb '등록' and resource '쇼핑몰 주문' are specific. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sale_order by specifying external order integration.

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?

States it is for automating shopping mall order integration, giving clear context. It implies this is for external orders rather than internal sales, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use other ECOUNT order-create tools.

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