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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful behavioral trait: the possible result states (started, awaiting payment, paid, not available), which tells the agent what to expect back. It omits read-only/auth guarantees and what 'not available' concretely signals, so it is good but not complete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the status enumeration. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the cartKey link and the return states but leaves the currency parameter and any auth/error semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured support.

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 0% for 2 parameters. The description clarifies cartKey by linking it to begin_checkout, adding real meaning beyond the bare 'string/uuid' schema, but the currency parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (check) and resource (cart status) and ties itself to the sibling begin_checkout, which creates the cart being queried. The enumerated status values make the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from siblings like quote or get_plan.

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 phrase 'a cart started with begin_checkout' establishes the precondition for use and implicitly routes the agent from begin_checkout to this tool. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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