create_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a primary behavior beyond the name: the tool creates an invoice link and returns a URL. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or how options like SendEmail and RequireConfirmation alter the flow, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The core purpose is stated first, and the return value is given immediately, making the definition easy to parse and act on.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the primary return value, and the rich schema handles parameter documentation. However, with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still leaves gaps around selecting optional behaviors, understanding edge cases, and distinguishing from payment siblings.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('payment order (invoice link)'), and states the key outcome (a URL the payer can open). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like charge_payment or create_subscription, but the invoice-link wording strongly implies a deferred-payment flow.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The phrase 'Returns a URL the payer can open to pay' implies this tool is for generating a payment link rather than an immediate charge, but the implication is left to the reader.

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