Create a new sales order

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond them: the trade-module prerequisite, the need to pre-validate VAT/ledger combinations, and the country-specific required field. It does not contradict the annotations and adds context without getting into response details.

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 compact and roughly front-loaded, but it opens with two identical sentences ('Create a new sales order.' repeated). That redundancy means not every sentence earns its place, which keeps it from being a 4 or 5.

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 complex creation endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious prerequisites and conditional requirements needed to invoke it successfully. It omits response behavior, but the rich schema covers required fields and enums, so no critical invocation information is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining cross-parameter constraints not inferable from the schema: valid combinations of vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option, and the AT/DE delivery_date requirement. The input schema separately documents the individual field meanings and required fields, so the combination is strong.

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 the exact action and resource ('Create a new sales order') and includes the endpoint POST /orders/sales, so an agent can tell it apart from the get/update/list/send sales-order siblings. It is clear but restates the tool title without adding additional scope or explicit differentiation among the create_* siblings, so not a 5.

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?

It gives actionable preconditions: the trade module must be active, the /orders/sales/options endpoint should be consulted first, and delivery_date is mandatory for AT/DE administrations. This is clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with alternative tools.

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