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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses the cross-business scope, that returns are per-shop links plus subtotals, that shipping is unresolved until the shop's checkout, that message-based businesses get an order page instead, and that payment happens off-site. It omits whether this creates persistent server-side state and any auth expectations, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then inputs, outputs, and constraints in three tight sentences; almost no waste. The closing no-card-details sentence is a policy aside that is slightly tangential but does earn its place as a guardrail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-shop cart link or order page, subtotal, unknown shipping). It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only auth/state side effects left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the items payload as ids returned by the sibling lookup tools with quantities, which is the key meaning an agent needs. It does not cover the quantity bounds (1-99) or what happens when one id maps to a different shop, but the core semantic is supplied.

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 resource ("Put several products into a basket in one step") and scopes it to AgentFeed businesses. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling readers (search_products, browse_products, get_product) and from start_order, since it builds a basket rather than ordering.

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 says where the ids come from (the sibling search/browse/get tools) and when to invoke it ("once the shopper has agreed to the items"), plus a hard prohibition on collecting card details. It does not explicitly contrast itself with start_order or say when a single-shop flow should be preferred, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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