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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that no charge is made (a payment link is returned and the guest pays it themselves), that the held slot is released and the order cancelled if payment is not made in time, that partial failures release the slot with nothing charged, and that retrying the same draftId never double-creates an order. The idempotentHint=true annotation is thus reinforced with the mechanism (draftId) behind it.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then payment behavior, failure semantics, idempotency, and the follow-up tool. Each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact; nothing is filler or restated from the title.

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 and no schema descriptions, the description compensates by describing the returned payment link and the success/failure outcomes, including slot release and cancellation. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations for the result.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it identifies draftId as the output of draft_preorder and explains its idempotency semantics ('retrying with the same draftId never creates a second order'). It only lacks a note on whether the id is reusable after a successful placement or how it is obtained exactly.

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 (places) and resource (pre-order) and explicitly anchors it to the drafting sibling: 'a pre-order drafted with draft_preorder, exactly as drafted'. It also names the downstream sibling track_order, so the agent can distinguish this step from drafting and from tracking.

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 clearly establishes the sequencing condition (use this after draft_preorder, and the draft is placed verbatim, so no further editing happens here) and routes to track_order afterwards. It does not, however, explain when a pre-order is preferable to sibling booking tools like book_reservation or list_preorder_slots, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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