place_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes input requirements and does not mention side effects (e.g., charging, inventory changes, confirmation), safety, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then listing required elements. Every sentence is informative without extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the input structure but omits return value details, error scenarios, or post-order behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra meaning. It reiterates the required fields and the optional nature of negotiation_session, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 explicitly states 'Place an order for a product' and lists required components (offer ID, quantity, shipping address, shipping method). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or check_order.

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 clear usage guidance by listing required and optional inputs. It indicates when to use the optional negotiation session parameter, which helps in scenarios with negotiated prices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if an order already exists), but the context from sibling tools implies appropriate usage.

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