place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a EUR 50,000 max limit, supports idempotency_key to prevent duplicates, and requires an 'order' scope API key. These are meaningful operational constraints that go beyond a simple action statement, though it does not describe the response format or side effects like payment or stock reservation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, a mandatory input condition, and two critical constraints (limit and idempotency) plus auth requirement. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to convey essential context. It covers the most critical operational constraints (auth scope, max limit, idempotency, product identifier rule), and the schema covers required fields. However, the absence of any indication of what the response looks like (e.g., order ID) or potential error cases leaves a notable gap for an order-placing 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 description coverage is 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a clear 'at least one' rule for product_id/product_slug, which the schema already implies through 'required if no product_slug' and vice versa. The idempotency_key mention is already in the schema. Thus the added value over the schema is marginal.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Place a product order') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quote (which likely creates a quote) and order_status (which checks status). Additional constraints like product identifier requirements reinforce its unique role.

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 does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios. It provides useful preconditions (must supply product_id or product_slug, requires order scope), but the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is only implied by the tool's name and sibling context.

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