lufa_get_checkout_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it requires an active session, explains how the two computed fields are derived, and candidly warns that the API has no explicit cutoff field and that the countdown is an approximation. It also notes that Lufa may stop accepting basket changes before the delivery window opens, providing valuable nuance beyond a simple 'retrieve' statement.

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 three to four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details the returned fields, then adds the cutoff caveat and session requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (delivery date, address, window, plus computed fields) and their semantics. It also addresses the accuracy of the countdown and the active-session prerequisite, making the tool's behavior clear in context. Minor error-condition details are absent, but for a no-parameter read-only getter, this is sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameter semantics. It focuses on the output and behavior, which is sufficient.

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 opens with 'Retrieve delivery metadata for the current order, including a countdown,' which uses a specific verb ('retrieve'), a clear resource ('delivery metadata'), and a distinguishing focus (countdown). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_order_details by emphasizing delivery timing and computed fields.

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 context—when you need delivery date, address, time window, and countdown for the current order. It notes the approximate nature of the time remaining, which helps decide whether to rely on it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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