Create order

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal that it creates an order, returns an invoice, and that payment is required for the reveal link. However, it doesn't mention idempotency behavior, failure modes, authentication requirements, or the full return format. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more disclosure is expected.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying information: the action, the follow-up step, and the dependency. No filler, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool that creates an order and returns an invoice, the description covers the flow: create, pay, poll. It mentions the dependency and the next step. With no output schema, it indicates the primary return (invoice). It lacks details on error handling or idempotency, but the essential workflow is clear.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning for variantId by pointing to get_product as its source, which is helpful. It doesn't explain productId or the relationship between amount and currency beyond schema. Overall, it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 clearly states the action (create an order), the resource (order), and the outcome (get a Lightning invoice). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_order_status as the next step and get_product as the source of variantId, making its role unique.

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 explicit guidance: use when you want to create an order and get an invoice, and it tells the agent to poll get_order_status after payment. It also specifies a prerequisite (variantId from get_product). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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