create_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does not state the tool is a write/mutation action, any pricing/quote implications, whether addresses vs terminal pickups are mutually exclusive, limits, or what happens on success/failure. It adds only the carrier context (Business Lines).

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 extremely short (one sentence). While concise, it undersells a complex 16-parameter mutation tool. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, though it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain dimensions like the sender/receiver terminal-vs-address relationship (mutually exclusive?), quantity defaulting, and expected outcome. None of this is covered. The tool is more complex than the single-sentence description acknowledges.

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 16 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description doesn't compensate, so 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Creating a cargo transportation order in Business Lines' — a specific verb (create) plus resource (order) plus context (Business Lines). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like track, calculate, or get_order_history, which are clearly separate functions but no differentiation of scope or relationship is given.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention that city IDs and terminal IDs must be fetched first via get_cities/get_terminals. No mention of prerequisites or workflow order, which matters since required sender/receiver city_ids suggest prior lookups.

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