Poll a checkout by checkout_id. Returns status (pending | paid | cancelled), full item list, customer details, and payment_url if already minted. Use to verify customer details before calling complete_checkout, or to retrieve the payment_url if complete_checkout was already called.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkout_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that payment_url is only returned 'if already minted' and lists the exact fields returned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, so a perfect 5 is not warranted.
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?
Two sentences accomplish multiple goals: state function, list return values, and provide usage scenarios. No wasteful words, and 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?
For a simple one-parameter getter, the description fully covers return values, conditional behavior, and usage timing. It even mentions the 'already minted' edge case, making it contextually complete.
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?
The single parameter checkout_id is only referenced by name with no additional format or provenance details. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but only restates the parameter name.
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 'Poll' and identifies the resource 'checkout by checkout_id'. It clearly lists return contents and references sibling tools complete_checkout and update_checkout, differentiating its purpose.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'before calling complete_checkout' and 'if complete_checkout was already called'. This provides clear context and alternatives, making it easy to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the presence of three search tools (search_catalog, search_products, lookup_catalog) and legacy tools (create_order, submit_enquiry) creates minor overlap. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might initially confuse them.
All 26 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cancel_cart, configure_product). No mixed cases or irregular verbs are present.
26 tools is slightly high for a blind shop, but the domain requires many operations (search, pricing, cart, checkout, recommendations, etc.). Some legacy tools could be removed, but the count is still reasonable.
The tool surface covers the full customer journey from product discovery (search, recommendations) to purchase (cart, checkout, payment) and post-purchase (orders, swatches, price match, delivery estimates). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.