submit_order

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Submit' which implies mutation, but lacks details on side effects, required preconditions (e.g., validation), idempotency, or error handling. The agent contract addresses response handling but not the tool's own behavior.

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 (two sentences) and avoids redundancy. However, the 'Agent contract' clause may be better placed elsewhere, as it mixes usage instructions with purpose. Still, it achieves conciseness without extraneous content.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 8 required, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, required parameter formats, or what happens upon successful submission. The presence of an output schema is mentioned only implicitly via 'structuredContent', but the description does not detail the return value.

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 only 17% (2 of 12 parameters have descriptions). The main tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Important fields like drug_code, dose, frequency lack any semantic context.

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 'Submit a medication order to the HIS service', specifying the verb ('submit'), resource ('medication order'), and target system ('HIS service'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_order, stop_order, or query tools, which have different purposes.

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 like validate_order or other submission-related tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, and no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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