checkout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits orders and returns a summary with confirmation ID, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like order charges, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the action and outcome. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second describes the return value. No wasted words or 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return information but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or prerequisites. For a tool that likely involves financial transactions or order changes, this is minimally adequate but leaves important context uncovered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or dependencies). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Review the current order and submit it for pickup or delivery.' It specifies the verb ('review and submit') and resource ('current order'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_item' or 'create_order'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_order' which might also involve order submission.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'pickup or delivery', suggesting this tool is for finalizing orders. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_order' (which might initiate orders) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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