create_customer_order

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail is 'Prices in RUBLES (converted to kopecks),' which repeats the schema field description and does not disclose side effects, permissions, response format, or workflow implications. The tool might create a draft order or finalize it, but no such detail is given.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence about currency is redundant with the schema's price field description. It does not add new information, so it does not fully 'earn its place.' Still, it is not verbose, and the main purpose is stated clearly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks essential context for safe and correct invocation. It doesn't mention, for example, whether the created order is final or draft, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide workflow or side-effect 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter given a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the rubric note about prices appears in both places). Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Create a customer order.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'create_purchase_order' tool, so it misses the opportunity to differentiate beyond the tool name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_purchase_order, update_customer_order_status, or create_sales_return. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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