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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds the genuinely important behavior that placing the order does not charge anyone — it creates a held order with a payment link (card, USD, AllPay secure page). That materially changes how an agent should reason about side effects. It omits what happens on failure or whether/how long a hold expires.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its payoff, then the payment behavior, then the safety rule, then the pre-check. Every sentence carries information, though the final enumeration reads as a somewhat listy restatement.

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 13-parameter, 8-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: the deferred-charge model, the returned payment link and total, and the need to verify delivery details with the person. Remaining gaps (slug semantics, coupon/surprise handling) are modest relative to what is documented, and the return value is already described inline.

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 54%, so several of the 13 parameters (slug, city enum, surprise, delivery_notes, buyer_name/email/phone) rely on the schema alone; the description only enumerates recipient, address, phone, date and card message as items to confirm. That adds a confirmation semantic but no format or selection guidance (e.g. what slug refers to), so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb+resource ("Place an order") and immediately names the concrete artifact it returns ("get its payment link"), which no sibling offers. An agent can distinguish this from quote, order_status, and delivery_options 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?

It gives real operating context: the order is only a hold until the person pays, hand them the link and total, and never pay on their behalf unless explicitly asked and funded. It also sets a precondition (confirm recipient, address, phone, date, card message first). It stops short of explicitly routing to siblings like quote for pre-purchase pricing, so not a full 5.

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