create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new order and returns an order ID, which implies a write operation, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the order is immediately processed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's action and outcome. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or the structure of the returned order ID. While it mentions the order ID's use for payment links, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'items' and 'customerEmail'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's information.

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: 'Create a new order for products.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('order for products'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'generate_payment_link' or 'check_payment_status' beyond mentioning the returned order ID's use for payment links, which is helpful but not a full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the returned order ID can be used to generate a payment link, which implies a workflow but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other tools like 'generate_payment_link' directly or what prerequisites might be needed. No exclusions or clear context for usage are provided.

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