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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a CardGate link gets a locally generated QR and that expiry follows the payment method's window counted from placement, plus that it does not settle payment — but it says nothing about return value, failure modes, stock/reservation side effects, or what happens on repeated calls beyond the presence of idempotencyKey.

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 English portion is front-loaded and each sentence adds information. However, the full Dutch restatement roughly doubles the length without adding new semantics, which is a real cost for an agent reading many tool definitions.

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?

This is an unannotated, irreversible-feeling checkout mutation with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the hash gate and payment-link behavior but leaves shipping destination, terms acceptance, idempotency semantics and the result of a successful placement unexplained.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only does so for confirmHash ('hash of lines, quantities and total'). The required agentId, cartId and idempotencyKey, plus paymentMethod, acceptTerms and the nested shipTo object, are entirely undefined anywhere.

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+resource ('Place the order') and adds the scope that distinguishes it from siblings like gnv_order_status by noting it does not mark the order paid. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied through ordering context.

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 a clear precondition: only place after the hash of lines, quantities and total is confirmed. It also draws a boundary ('does not mark the order paid'), which tells the agent this is not the payment-confirmation step, but it names no alternative tool for that follow-up.

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