place_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'SPENDS REAL MONEY', is gated by 'orders_enabled', is not undoable except via cancel_order(), refuses the call if the total mismatches, and returns only when the order actually exists. It also explains payment settlement behavior for Ozon Card and pay-on-delivery. This is exemplary transparency.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds critical operational detail for a high-risk action. The gating warning is front-loaded, and instructions are sequenced logically. Minor redundancy exists ('pass back the figure they agreed to' vs. 'confirm_total' semantics) but overall it is well-structured.

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 financial transaction tool, the description covers preconditions, required user-facing steps, failure conditions, return value (order_number), and downstream tool dependencies. Even with an output schema present, the description explains what an agent needs to know to call it correctly and safely. Nothing essential 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?

The schema already fully describes confirm_total with examples and validation semantics (100% coverage). The description reinforces this by instructing to copy from get_checkout().totals and explaining the refusal on mismatch. It adds value by tying the parameter to the workflow, though the schema is already strong.

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 the action: 'Submit the order that get_checkout() describes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from related tools like get_checkout (which only describes) and cancel_order/pay_order (which are post-submission steps).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: read get_checkout() immediately before, show the user the total, and pass back the agreed figure. It also mentions the refusal condition if the total no longer matches, and directs the caller to use cancel_order() or pay_order() subsequently. This is clear when-to-use and how-to-use context.

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