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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the essential behavior: no cart or order is created, no payment or login occurs, only a link is returned that the customer must click, and there is a 10-item cap. This is exactly the side-effect profile an agent needs for a tool annotated readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the heavy emphasis (caps, repeated negatives) is purposeful for a tool that must not be mistaken for checkout. It is slightly verbose with the capitalized negations, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical points: what is produced (a link, not a cart), what the agent/kund must do next, and the item cap. Only minor gaps remain, such as link expiry or what happens when the item limit is exceeded.

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 as 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does map the three fields (handle produktu, variantId wariantu, ilosc) and states the 10-item maximum. However, it adds no syntax or sourcing detail — e.g. where variantId comes from or whether quantity limits are per line or per cart — beyond the brief inline schema notes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it builds a signed cart link ("Sklada PODPISANY LINK do koszyka sklepu Aloha Fungi") from given items. It then explicitly contrasts itself with ordering/payment, which separates it from siblings such as place_order and zloz_zamowienie.

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?

It gives a clear context for use (building a cart link from product handle, variantId, quantity) and strong negative guidance — it never creates a cart/order, never pays, never logs the user in, and the client must click the link. It does not name a specific alternative sibling (e.g. place_order or compose_subscription) for the cases it excludes, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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