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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: if the payment could not be created before, it is started again — a disclosed side effect that reconciles with the non-read-only hint rather than contradicting it. It also discloses the degenerate output cases (paid/cancelled/expired) and the security-relevant constraint that no direct provider link is returned.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary output (order_url, QR code) front-loaded, followed by fallback behaviors. The parenthetical quoting of 'Betal nu' is slightly noisy but earns its place by clarifying the page 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names order_url, a QR code, and the alternative notice messages for non-payable orders. An agent knows what to expect back in every state without opening anything else.

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 order_id sourced from place_order and shop sourced from find_shops already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and return content: the shop's order page URL (order_url) plus a QR code for paying an order, and explicitly rules out a direct payment-provider link. The distinction from get_payment_status is implied by the 'link vs. status' framing, but no sibling is named outright, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

Gives clear conditions: it applies while the order can still be paid, it retries payment creation if that previously failed, and it returns a notice instead for paid/cancelled/expired orders. That is solid conditioning, though it never explicitly routes the agent to an alternative sibling (e.g. get_payment_status) for those terminal states.

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