Get the cart

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

The description discloses that this is a read operation ('Read'), which implies non-destructive behavior, and details the returned data (line items with names, options, quantities, prices, total). It adds the index information but does not address error cases or authentication requirements, which are undisclosed but acceptable given no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then supporting details. No unnecessary words.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the return shape (line items with attributes and total) and notes the index field for remove_item. It does not mention error scenarios, but given the simplicity, it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both lang and restaurant_id are described in the schema. The description does not add parameter specifics, just references 'shop' which corresponds to restaurant_id, but the baseline of 3 applies since schema covers parameters.

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 clearly states the tool reads the current server-side basket, specifying the resource (basket) and the action (read). It distinguishes from siblings like clear_cart and remove_item by focusing on read-only access.

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 usage when you need to view the basket contents, mentioning that line items have an index used for remove_item, which hints at the read-then-modify workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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