public_orders_create

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates an order (not idempotent), returns payment link, and explicitly states the agent does not process payment. No contradictions with annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false match creation semantics).

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 with clear structure: first states action and output, second adds constraints and usage hints. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, return value, constraints (general admission, same organizer), and a prerequisite action (check stock). Lacks error handling details but sufficient for a creation tool with no output schema.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; e.g., buyerEmail receives QR is already in schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a B2C order and returns a Mercado Pago payment link. It specifies the scope (general admission, same organizer) and distinguishes from sibling tools like public_events_availability and public_orders_get.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to process payment, only deliver the checkoutUrl. Also recommends checking stock with public_events_availability beforehand. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for numbered or members-only events).

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