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

Annotations only declare the generic hint flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), while the description adds real behavioral context: signing, no cart/order creation, no payment or authentication, customer-side action required, and a 10-item cap. It does not say whether the link expires or whether repeated calls yield the same link, which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the produced artifact followed by the critical negative scope and the hard limit. Every sentence adds information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 tool's real complexity is the misinterpretation risk of being thought of as a checkout/order action, and the description neutralizes that directly, while the output schema covers the return shape and annotations cover flag hints. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 reported at 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it enumerates the item shape (product handle + variant ID + quantity) and the max of 10 items, matching the nested schema and maxItems constraint. It adds no guidance on where the variant ID comes from or what happens if a handle is invalid.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Composes a SIGNED LINK to the Aloha Fungi cart from given items'. It also explicitly separates itself from the write-path siblings ('does NOT create a cart or order'), so an agent can distinguish it from place_order/zloz_zamowienie without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: the output is a link the customer must click to add products and checkout, and no order/payment/login happens here. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not condition against place_order, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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