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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by specifying the return shape: 'a HAL collection embedding fx:carts' and the exact HTTP endpoint. It does not cover pagination details, but the parameter schema already documents limit and offset.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical clarification plus endpoint reference add useful information without bloat.

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 read-only list operation with all parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides the essential context: the resource, its conceptual meaning, the HTTP endpoint, and the HAL response format. There is no output schema, but the return type is explicitly stated.

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 100%, so the parameter schema fully documents zoom, limit, offset, and store_id. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which reflects the store_id but not the other parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List a store's carts' and clarifies the resource as 'in-progress / abandoned checkouts'. It also references the exact Foxy hAPI endpoint, which makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling list tools.

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 description gives clear context: this is the tool for listing carts belonging to a store. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling tool directly competes with this cart-listing operation, so the context is sufficient.

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