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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses that the action returns a cart link, does not trigger payment, and requires OAuth authentication. It does not mention whether multiple calls create multiple carts or how the current cart is affected, but it does add meaningful behavioral context.

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, each earning its place: the core action, the return/non-payment behavior, and the authentication prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 a single parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and return-value information (cart link, no payment, OAuth). No critical detail needed for invoking the tool correctly is absent.

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 sole parameter is already well documented in the schema as an order ID from my_orders. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (assembling a new cart) and a precise source (items from a previous order), and clarifies the non-payment outcome. This distinguishes it from siblings like build_cart (building from scratch) and create_invoice_order (payment-focused).

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 intended context is clear: use this when a user wants to rebuild a cart from an earlier order. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'из позиций прошлого заказа' provides enough contextual guidance.

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