ddg_submit_order

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates that the order is 'operator-reviewed' and requires payment proof, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details about side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence without excess words. However, it omits important details that could be included without harming conciseness, so it is not maximally helpful.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fails to cover parameter meanings, output expectations, or error handling. It is too brief to be considered complete.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit'), identifies the resource ('paid operator-reviewed DDG order'), and includes a condition ('after caller supplies valid payment headers/proof'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like `ddg_order_status` or `ddg_quote_payment`.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after the caller has valid payment headers/proof. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, missing some guidance for the agent to differentiate from similar tools.

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