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

With annotations covering readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, the description adds meaningful context: it locks the cart, does not take payment, hands the buyer to Tanatasa for review and details, and requires the same idempotency key on retries. It adds strong behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded and tightly written. Each sentence adds operational value: the action, required monetary/version context, retry behavior, cart locking, buyer flow, and non-payment clarification.

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 mutating checkout-preparation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers locking, no-payment behavior, buyer review flow, retry semantics, and status-check routing. It could go slightly further by describing the returned review link or authorization expectations, but the essential call context is present.

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 low at 20%, so the description carries most of the burden. It explains the quoted version, expected_total in SGD cents, idempotency_key reuse on retries, and quoted cart context, leaving only guest_token to the schema.

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: 'Prepare a Tanatasa checkout review link for a quoted cart.' It clearly distinguishes the action from payment and points to get_order for status, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling checkout_session.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a quoted cart' and the retry guidance, and it notes that get_order reports progress rather than this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over checkout_session or other checkout-adjacent siblings.

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