checkout_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it lists what is validated (cart components, discounts, locker/time, wallet, price cap) and notes the quote's 120-second lifetime, which is useful behavioral detail. It does not contradict readOnlyHint because quote validation is non-mutating; the quote is an ephemeral validation artifact.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to scope or behavior.

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 quote-creation tool with one nested parameter object and no output schema, the description covers the validation scope and quote lifetime but omits what the quote returns (e.g., quote ID/token), failure conditions, and how the quote is consumed by checkout_submit. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to use the result correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the nested request parameters (account, store_code, pickup_at, max_amount_cny, eat_type). The description only indirectly hints at domain concepts like 'locker/time' and 'price cap' and does not explain formats, required constraints, or the role of store_code/account.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('cart, components, discounts, locker/time, wallet and price cap') and states that it creates a 120-second quote. It clearly distinguishes a quote from a submit/pay operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool checkout_submit.

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 a pre-checkout validation step by saying it validates the cart and creates a quote, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus checkout_submit, order_pay, or cart_get. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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