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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a FINANCIAL + WRITE operation, requires user confirmation, is idempotent, and does not finalize payment. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded: action, required parameters, draft lifecycle, then the critical financial/write confirmation warning and idempotency. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the essential operation, required fields, draft vs. finalized behavior, confirmation requirement, and idempotency. With an output schema present and annotations provided, this is largely complete, though a brief mention of when to prefer the sibling order_lunch would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameter semantics are already documented. The description restates the required top-level fields and the shape of each item, which helps, but it does not add deeper meaning such as currency units, date format nuances, or how idempotency interacts with parameters.

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 the verb (create), the resource (draft lunch order), and the scope (for a student). It also distinguishes this tool from finalize_order by explaining that the result is a draft, not a committed order.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: create a draft, then call finalize_order to commit. It also warns to confirm order details with the user before calling. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling order_lunch, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use explanation.

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