Place order (real purchase)

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it charges the chosen payment method, cannot be undone, performs validation against the delivery address, returns a summary, and requires explicit user approval before confirming. This adds substantial context about side effects and safety flow.

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 dense but extremely well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose and consequence, then provides a clear 'Safety:' callout with the two-step flow, and ends with a practical payment note. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, no output schema, 6 parameters), the description fully covers the decision-relevant aspects: what it does, consequences, safety confirmation flow, payment options, and validation behavior. It also references related tools for prerequisites, making it complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the two-phase confirm behavior (preview vs actual submit) and the payment limitation (no card entry, must use cash or saved token). It also references get_payment_methods, which is helpful for understanding the payment_token parameter.

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 this tool submits the shop's server-side basket as a real order, with the explicit consequence of charging the user's payment method and being irreversible. It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and identifies the resource (server-side basket → efood order), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like clear_cart or get_cart.

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 instructs to call with confirm:false first to preview/validate, and only call confirm:true after user approval. Also provides an exclusion: card details cannot be entered here, pointing to get_payment_methods for payment tokens. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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