Place order

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: product existence validation, stock availability check, stock decrement, and return of a mock confirmation. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise, using one sentence to state the purpose and two to describe behaviors. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though a more structured format could enhance readability.

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 output schema existence, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, validation, mutation, and mock return. However, missing details about error conditions and side effects slightly reduce completeness for a mutation tool.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds behavioral context about validation but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'place an order' and identifies the resource as an order for a product. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_availability and search_products by detailing the full order process including validation, stock decrement, and confirmation.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to place an order) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Mentioning that check_availability should be used first for stock verification would improve clarity.

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