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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the order may be billed to the firm, card accounts receive a quote or pay link by email, net-30 accounts are billed monthly, and an Authorization bearer token is required. With idempotentHint=false it gives no guidance on duplicate submissions or retries, and it does not say what happens to an order after placement, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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?

Front-loads who the tool is for and what it does, then layers billing and auth notes in short clauses with no filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical enumerations, but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never states what a successful call returns (order identifier, quote status, or error modes) beyond implying a pay link may go out by email. For a non-idempotent write with a nested details object, the return contract should be spelled out.

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 already 83%, and the description only restates the confirm=true rule and that details are keyed as firm_services lists them, both of which the schema says. It adds no format or constraint detail for client_ref, due_date, or notes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Names a specific verb (places) and resource (an order in the firm's name) and enumerates the service families it covers (process serving, court filing, apostille, recording, records retrieval), routing to firm_services for the key list. An agent can distinguish it from firm_orders/firm_order_status without opening a 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?

States the precondition clearly ('For an approved MCC business account's assistant') and gives a procedural rule ('confirm with the person and pass confirm: true'). It does not name sibling alternatives for ordering vs. requesting a service or for checking status afterward, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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