eatmeprint-ordering

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context (no account or password required, values come from a status link), but says nothing about invalid/expired codes, rate limits, or what a failed lookup returns.

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, zero filler, with the core action and required inputs front-loaded before the auth note and usage hint. Every sentence contributes something an agent could act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what 'current state' includes; it never indicates which status fields or milestones are returned. For a simple two-parameter lookup it is workable, but the agent cannot anticipate the response shape or error signaling.

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 carries the burden, and it does clarify the crucial provenance of both values: the id and code come from the status link and the code is not a password. It does not describe format, length, or validation for either parameter, leaving half the semantic gap open.

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 gives a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('the current state of an order') plus the exact inputs needed to do it. It is clearly distinct from the write-oriented sibling place_order and from get_pricing/preview_set, so an agent can route on the text alone.

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?

'Use this to report progress back to the person who asked' gives a concrete usage context, and 'Needs no account and no password' rules out an authentication prerequisite the agent might otherwise assume. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the response shape with a ZIP (firm shipping cost and total) versus without one ("$67 plus shipping"), and the guarantee that the quoted rate is the same live carrier rate place_order will book. That consistency guarantee is exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to call it, then the ZIP branch. No filler, and the example output string conveys the degraded case faster than prose would.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the four returned facts and shows both response shapes. Combined with the annotations covering safety and zero required parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the consequence of supplying zip (a firm quote and total, tied to the booked rate) rather than just repeating its format. It says nothing about the state parameter beyond what the schema already states, which is its only 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?

States a specific verb and a precisely scoped resource: pricing, shipping cost, lead time and allergens for one named product (edible photo macaron set). It also distinguishes itself from the ordering siblings by framing itself as the pre-order information call and by tying its shipping rate to the rate place_order books.

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?

"Call this before ordering so you can tell the person what it costs and what is in it" gives explicit timing and a downstream consumer of the result, and the ZIP/no-ZIP branch is spelled out. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., for existing orders, where check_order applies) but the sibling routing is implicit and clear.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description goes well beyond them: money is actually spent, the product physically ships, the order only reaches the bakery after payment confirms, retries are deduplicated via a derived key, and exceeding max_total_usd still creates the order while withholding payment instructions. The idempotentHint=false vs. 'retrying the identical request is safe' tension is resolved in-text by distinguishing retry-dedup from deliberate reorders, so it is a nuance rather than a contradiction.

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?

A dense paragraph with no filler: the highest-stakes fact (real order, real money, real shipment) leads, the confirmation prerequisite follows, then the input paths and return values. Every sentence carries distinct operational information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 12-parameter, nested-object, money-spending tool with no output schema, the description still covers return values (order id, deposit address and amount, no-account status link), the payment-gated fulfillment model, and the recovery path via confirm_total_usd. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by framing the images-vs-set_hash choice as a cross-parameter decision and recommending the simplest route ('nine URLs, simplest — the set is built for you'). It also reinforces the hard phone requirement, though that is already stated in the nested schema.

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 and resource ('Places a REAL order for physical macarons shipped to a real address') and immediately names the return artifact (crypto deposit address). It is clearly distinguishable from preview_set (which produces the set_hash) and check_order (which presumably tracks status), so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Confirm the total, the delivery address and the allergen warning with the person you are acting for BEFORE calling this'), an either/or input path ('Pass either images ... or the set_hash and add_to_cart_fields returned by a previous preview_set call'), and a pointed exclusion ('do NOT use reorder_nonce for this'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description goes further: exact validation rules, refusal of private/internal addresses and redirects, and an explicit statement that nothing is charged. An agent knows precisely what will and won't happen on invocation.

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 tight sentences: what it builds first, what it returns next, then the constraints. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (nine URLs, grid order, no charge) lead.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the missing return-shape info (thumbnails, price, set_hash) and all validation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so baseline 3; the description adds real meaning by specifying grid ordering (left to right, top to bottom) and the per-image constraints (JPEG/PNG, 10 MB, plain https, no redirects, no private addresses) that the schema only gestures at. The email parameter isn't elaborated, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action (build a printable 3x3 set from nine URLs) with exact scope and returns, making it clearly distinct from place_order, get_pricing, and check_order.

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 'Nothing is charged and no order is created' line plus the set_hash handoff to place_order implicitly positions this as the pre-check step. It doesn't explicitly say 'call this before place_order instead of ordering directly,' so the routing guidance is strong but not fully spelled out.

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