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

It clearly describes the return payload (order, offer, access token), warns that the token must be kept, and explains the edge case for services without a catalogue price. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences deliver the essential action, return values, a required follow-up behavior, and an edge case. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the key return elements and an important special case. It does not describe error behavior or the exact lifecycle after creation, but the core call sequence is sufficiently clear for an agent to proceed.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented structurally. The description adds context around catalogue pricing and service-page hashes, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Place an order for a service') and clearly identifies the core action. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is distinct from accepting an offer, checking status, or starting payment.

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 description implies when to use the tool—when placing an order—and gives useful context about follow-up calls and unpriced services. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives like accept_offer or start_payment, so usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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