Submit an order (mobile API)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, covering the mutation and non-idempotence. The description adds valuable context: 'High-impact, money-relevant side effect: creates a real Alza order' reinforces the destructive nature, and it discloses the known HTTP 500 issue on `sendOrder3`, steering agents to the safe alternative. While annotations cover the core behavioral flags, the description enriches with operational cautions.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It opens with the operation and required components, then covers usage guardrails, side effects, a known issue, and auth prerequisites. It is not verbose or repetitive, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical information. It is well structured and front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the complexity (multi-step, nested objects, destructive side effect), the description covers everything an agent needs: the exact source of each parameter, the one-time token constraint, the auth prerequisite and recovery flow, the failure signature with an alternative, and the high-stakes nature. An output schema exists to cover return values, so nothing else is missing.

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 each parameter has a base description. The tool description adds cross-references: `confirmation_token` is described as a one-time checkout token from `checkout_preview`, and the three payloads are explicitly said to be 'copied from the preview/delivery responses.' This clarifies provenance and usage beyond the schema, which is enough to elevate from baseline 3.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Submit'), a concrete resource ('an order'), and the exact API path ('mobile API's multi-step sequence'). It also differentiates from the sibling `web_place_order` by naming the alternative and noting the mobile endpoint's failure. This is highly specific and leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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?

Explicit condition 'Use only when the user has explicitly confirmed the purchase' directly states when to invoke. It also names the alternative `web_place_order` for a known-working path and details the prerequisite auth token flow (`check_account_status`, `auth_start`, `auth_exchange`). No inference is needed; the agent is fully guided.

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