Bestellung zu einer gueltigen Quote aufgeben (Zahlart Vorkasse).
Rechnungs- und Lieferanschrift sind identisch (DE oder AT). Die Limits des Zugangs (Betrag je Bestellung, Bestellungen je Tag) prueft der Server. Die Bestellbestaetigung mit allen weiteren Schritten geht an die angegebene E-Mail-Adresse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ort | Yes | ||
| plz | Yes | ||
| land | No | DE | |
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| strasse | Yes | ||
| quote_id | Yes | ||
| referenz | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| client_secret | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully describes a valid-quote requirement, prepayment terms, identical billing/shipping addresses limited to DE/AT, server-side checks on order amount and daily limits, and email confirmation. It does not cover all failure modes, but it goes well beyond a minimal mutation statement.
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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint or behavior: quote validity, prepayment, address rules, server-side limits, and email confirmation. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.
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?
The core workflow is clear enough to place an order with the required parameters. However, with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not document the optional referenz/auth parameters, response/return behavior, or error cases. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to quote_id ('gueltige Quote'), to address fields (identical DE/AT addresses), and to email (confirmation destination). However, it leaves referenz, client_id, client_secret, and land semantics unexplained, so compensation is incomplete.
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 clearly states a specific verb-plus-resource purpose: 'Bestellung zu einer gueltigen Quote aufgeben' (place an order for a valid quote). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like angebot_einholen and bestellung_status by focusing on order placement rather than quote creation or status lookup.
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?
The usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is for placing an order against an already valid quote, with prepayment and identical DE/AT addresses. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All six tools map to distinct steps in the purchasing workflow: searching, product details, quoting, ordering, order status, and purchase terms. No two tools compete for the same task, and the object/action pairs such as quote/order and status/tracking are clearly separable.
Tools consistently use lowercase German words with underscores, but the grammatical pattern varies: actions such as angebot_einholen and bestellung_aufgeben use object+verb, while informational tools like produkt_details and bestellung_status are noun+noun compounds. Despite these minor deviations, the naming remains readable and functional.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a shop API: enough to cover a buyer's core journey without redundancy or excessive granularity. Each tool clearly earns its place in the workflow.
The endpoints cover the end-to-end order lifecycle: product search and details, binding quote, order placement, order tracking, and terms of purchase. There are no obvious missing operations that would prevent an agent from completing a B2B purchase.