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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds the concrete consequence — a real order is sent to the vendor — which gives the agent operational context beyond the structured hints. It does not describe failure behavior, but the key irreversibility is conveyed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, with zero redundant padding. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (what it does, what it needs, what side effect it triggers).

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 single-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the token dependency, and the real-world side effect. Only minor gaps remain, such as error/failure behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema as 'the confirmationToken returned by prepare_order.' The description restates exactly this, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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 verb (place) and resource (order) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the staging sibling prepare_order. An agent can tell it apart from prepare_order and check_order without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: the order must first be staged by prepare_order and the call requires the confirmationToken it returned. It does not state when not to use it, but the staged-then-confirm flow is unambiguous.

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