Place a licence order

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

Annotations declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: requires a buyer session (OPEDD_BUYER_JWT) and genuine terms_accepted=true per the MSA, returns the access key (only valid once paid) and hosted_invoice_url where the buyer pays, and guarantees non-offering publishers appear in `unavailable` and are never charged. This is exactly the kind of auth, payment, and failure-mode disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and cardinality are front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on packed with nested parentheticals covering four licence modes and cross-references, making it hard to scan. Most sentences carry needed detail, but the structure could be broken up and the description is close to over-length.

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 6-parameter, multi-mode order tool with no output schema, it covers return contents (order, lines, access key, hosted_invoice_url), auth prerequisites, terms acceptance, and edge cases (unavailable publishers, monthly coverage window). Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds interpretive value by explaining valid licence/billing_mode combinations and the monthly-answers temporal caveat ('only covers articles published from the day it starts'). It reinforces include_archive and quantity semantics but mostly duplicates what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Place a licence order with Opedd for one or more publishers') and immediately scopes the cardinality ('one order = one licence and one billing mode'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_licence_orders, purchase_license, and verify_license by describing order creation with per-publisher Schedules.

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?

Gives strong conditional guidance: self-serve buyers need no order for enterprise/per-answer pricing, include_archive is only for 'enterprise' + 'monthly', and each licence/billing_mode pairing is enumerated. It names related siblings (search_passages, stream_feed_ndjson) as context but never explicitly contrasts when to choose this tool over purchase_license or list_licence_orders.

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