Complete Zé checkout (gated pay)

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires an access token or returns 401, and it enforces dual gating plus an 18+ confirmation. This is meaningful operational context, though the exact side effects remain implicit.

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 very short and contains no filler, which is good. However, it relies on cryptic phrasing like 'Dual-gated plus 18+ confirmation' and an abrupt noun-phrase style, making it less clear than it could be without much extra 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?

This is a destructive write operation with no output schema, 0 required parameters, and subtle safety-gate booleans that default to false. The description does not explain return behavior, which flags must be explicitly set to true, or what consequences completing checkout has. An agent cannot invoke this tool reliably from this description alone.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It hints at '18+ confirmation' and 'dual-gated,' which loosely maps to confirmed_legal_age and explicit_user_intent, but it never explicitly names those parameters, explains response_format, or describes the nested input object. This is insufficient for the low schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly identify a 'complete checkout' operation with gated payment, which distinguishes it from checkout preview/load tools. It lacks explicit differentiation from ze_place_order, but the core verb and resource are specific enough.

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 provides an authentication prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ze_place_order or ze_checkout_preview. No exclusions or preferred invocation context are stated.

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