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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via the verb 'View' but does not state whether it requires authentication, what data is returned (e.g., items, totals), or any rate limits or side effects. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds useful context without verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose, and the schema fully describes parameters. However, the absence of usage guidelines and behavioral details leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect tool selection or invocation, especially with a sibling 'view_cart' available.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb ('View') and resource ('cart for one vendor'), and the parenthetical 'vendor-specific checkout view' clarifies the scope. It distinguishes from general cart tools by specifying 'one vendor', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative 'view_cart'.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for viewing a cart scoped to a single vendor, as opposed to a general cart. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over 'view_cart' or other cart-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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