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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: no charge, no reservation of stock, and a 7-day link expiry. It omits prerequisites such as whether the caller needs an authenticated user or what happens if the basket is invalid, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 action and result, then the user-facing flow, then the critical caveats. No filler, though the middle sentence about the buyer's journey is more narrative than operationally necessary for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still explains the link's nature and lifetime. For a two-parameter tool with a nested items array, the remaining gap is the country gating logic, which the schema covers but the description does not summarize.

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 50% and the description does not compensate: it never explains the items array, the per-item size/quantity limits, or the country parameter's not_open behavior, all of which live only in the schema. It does confirm that garments and sizes are the payload, which is marginal added meaning.

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 concrete verb and resource: it builds a basket from chosen garments/sizes and returns a Werop link, plus a short account of what the end user does with it. That is enough to separate it from search_products or get_product, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 flow described ('la persona lo abre, inicia sesión... y paga') implies the tool is used when a customer is ready to buy, and 'no cobra ni reserva nada' implies it is not the payment step. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing.

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