Create Order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: it creates an order and generates a checkout link, and mentions the TPV limitation. However, it does not elaborate on behavior like idempotency guarantees or synchronous/asynchronous nature, leaving gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with three short paragraphs. It front-loads purpose and requirements, then adds a warning. The warning block is essential but could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points). Overall, it is efficient with minimal 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 high complexity (34 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains return values (order ID, redirect URL) and covers when to use. However, the majority of parameters are unexplained, and the output schema is not detailed in the description, forcing reliance on the structured output schema. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two required parameters (merchant_order_reference, amount_value) and mentions integration_mode as supporting REDIRECT/IFRAME/SDK. However, 32 of 34 parameters remain undocumented, leaving the agent guessing about billing, shipping, customer details, etc. This is insufficient.

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 verb (create) and resource (Pine Labs checkout order) and mentions outputs (order ID, redirect URL). It specifies required inputs (merchant order reference, amount in paisa). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_payment_link or create_card_payment, though the context implies it's for checkout orders.

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 explicit usage guidance: when to use (creating checkout orders), requirements (merchant order reference, amount), supported integration modes (REDIRECT, IFRAME, SDK), and a critical warning against calling based on data fields/API responses. It also advises using a separate flow for TPV orders requiring bank details, effectively giving an alternative. This is exemplary.

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