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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result is in 'priority order' and listing the filtering capabilities, but it does not disclose pagination, default limits, or any other additional runtime behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one efficiently constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the optional filters with their value domains. Every word contributes; there is no repetition of the title or schema, and no filler.

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?

For a read-only list operation with an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the ordering behavior, and all filtering options. The annotations handle safety semantics, and the schema handles parameter details. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description echoes the enum values for status and mentions 'free-text search q' and 'category ids', which adds a slight summarization but no meaningful information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: listing 'your basket entries' with a clear ordering behavior ('in priority order') and enumerates the optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from the only other basket-related sibling, basket_chuck, whose name implies a different action (removing/discarding).

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 use case is implicitly clear: an agent would call this to view basket entries, optionally filtering by status, text, or category. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusionary guidance. The description gives context but leaves route selection to inference.

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