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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantially beyond that — the call is non-mutating in the store (no cart/order created, no payment taken), the customer pays themselves after clicking, and the link is encrypted and signed with live prices/address. It also discloses the 500 PLN hard limit, the 10-item cap, and the shipping-options return path when dostawa is absent, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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 critical constraint (no cart, no payment) is front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule: the 500 PLN ceiling, the missing-dostawa behavior, the item cap. It loses a point for heavy ALL-CAPS emphasis and for packing three separate constraints into one dense block rather than ordering them by decision importance.

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 still explains what comes back — an encrypted signed one-click link, or live shipping options when dostawa is omitted — plus the error shape above 500 PLN. For a nested-object, 5-parameter write-adjacent tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or predict the response 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?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description fills the most important gap: "dostawa" is optional and omitting it triggers a live shipping-options response with the cheapest option auto-selected. The 10-item cap and the optional parcel-locker concept are also stated, though "paczkomat" itself is not named in the description and address sub-field meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 a concrete verb and resource ("Places a COMPLETE order") plus the concrete artifact it produces ("returns an ENCRYPTED, signed one-click link to /zamowienie-agenta"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from cart-building siblings by stating "This tool does NOT create a cart or order and never pays", so an agent can separate it from compose_cart/zloz_koszyk without opening either schema.

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 explicit conditions: orders above 500 PLN are not supported and the tool returns an error with a link to a regular cart, which routes the agent elsewhere. It also states the conditional path when "dostawa" is omitted (live shipping options are returned and the cheapest is used) and caps items at 10, covering when-to-use and when-not-to-use without inference.

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