submit_order

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well on the highest-stakes traits: single-shot payment, no retry idempotency, and an explicit warning that outcomes may be uncertain. It stops short of saying what to do after an uncertain outcome or how money capture/refunds behave, so it is not exhaustive.

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 compact clauses, front-loading the action and the gating condition with zero filler. Every phrase carries operational weight.

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 real-money mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the critical safety properties are present but the definition still leaves failure handling, reconciliation, and the semantics of the confirmed total to inference.

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 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented. The description partially compensates: 'exact preview' maps to preview_token and 'explicit user confirmation' maps to explicit_confirmation, but confirmed_total_uzs (currency format, and the requirement that it match the previewed total) is only vaguely implied by 'exact'.

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 states a specific verb+resource — 'Place one paid order' — with an explicit cardinality constraint ('one'). It implicitly separates itself from the preview siblings via 'the exact preview', though it never names checkout_preview/order_preview directly.

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 gives a clear precondition for use: only after explicit user confirmation of the exact preview, and 'never retries'. What is missing is naming the alternative toolset for the preceding step (checkout_preview/order_preview) and the recovery path when an outcome is uncertain (reconcile_checkout).

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