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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and 'View' clearly signals a read-only operation with no mutation. It also discloses what the call returns, though it does not describe error cases or require auth caveats, which are minor for a simple view tool.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource before enumerating the returned data. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter read operation, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the resource, and the returned elements. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by listing 'lines, quantities and subtotal', though it stops short of detailing edge cases or response formatting.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description already fully documents it ('The basket token from create-basket.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the tool's purpose, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('a basket'), and specifies the exact contents returned: lines, quantities and subtotal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like add-to-basket, update-basket-item, and remove-from-basket.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when you need to inspect a basket's current contents and total. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, although sibling names make some of that context inferable.

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