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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the cart is 'unpaid', no signature is required, and results are caller-dependent, all of which affect how the call behaves.

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 clauses with zero filler; the core action and return payload are front-loaded, followed by the auth note and the parameter note in descending priority.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned contents (products, services, total), and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain: nothing about pagination or behavior when the cart is empty, but for a simple single-parameter read it is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents `caller` as an optional SS58 account. The description's 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)' mostly restates that, adding only a mild hint about caller-scoped output, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get caller's unpaid Marketplace cart') plus the payload ('products, services and total'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like geode_market_view_my_orders or geode_market_checkout_cart, which concern orders or mutation rather than a read of the pending 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?

The 'view my' framing and 'Read-only; no signature' clause imply when to use it, but no alternative is named (e.g., checkout_cart, update_cart_item_quantity) and no condition distinguishing it from other cart-adjacent tools is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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