Order a premium subscription (SPENDS MONEY)

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the financial consequence (debits wallet), irreversibility, and automatic idempotency key with safe retry semantics. This gives the agent essential knowledge about costs and error recovery well beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by critical warnings and idempotency behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 money-spending, irreversible mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most critical operational concerns: cost, reversibility, and retry safety. It does not describe the return value or any success/failure indicators, which would be useful but is not strictly required given the sibling tool get_premium_order exists for retrieval.

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 value by clarifying that an Idempotency-Key is sent automatically even if the parameter is not supplied, and by tying the recipient and product parameters to the user-confirmation requirement. This goes beyond the plain schema definitions.

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 ('buys a subscription seat') and the resource/effect ('debits your USD wallet'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_order and create_smm_order. The title reinforces the premium subscription scope and the money-spending nature.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call (after confirming product, price, and recipient) and warns that the action is not reversible. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use for premium subscriptions only' or 'prefer list_premium_products first,' though these are implied by the description and title.

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