Complete order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name: no state-transition rules (can a cancelled order be completed? does it require payment?), no side effects, no permission requirements.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation with a single well-documented parameter and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the state-transition semantics an agent would need to call it correctly in edge cases (already-completed or cancelled orders).

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?

Only one parameter ('order') exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Order ID or order number'). Per the rubric, full schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Marks the order as completed'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling mutations like cancel_order or create_fulfillment beyond the obvious wording of the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as cancel_order, nor any prerequisite (e.g., order must be paid/shipped). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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