vis_kurv

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's genuine contribution is naming what comes back (lines, fees, total, minimum purchase, selected delivery time), which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits whether a session/login is required, what happens with an empty basket, or that the store is selectable.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the single comma-separated field list is not a well-formed sentence and gives no structure beyond enumeration. Nothing is wasted, yet the fragment form makes it feel like a stub rather than a definition.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the field list does cover the essentials of the return value. It remains incomplete about preconditions (empty basket, authentication) and about the store parameter, which are the two things an agent would still need to call it confidently.

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 optional parameter ('butik', defaulting to 'nemlig'), which is close to the zero-parameter baseline. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions store selection, so the agent gets no confirmation that the basket can be viewed for a different store.

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 is a noun-phrase fragment ('Kurvens linjer, gebyrer, total, minimumskøb og valgt leveringstid') with no verb, so it never states that the tool retrieves or displays the basket. It expands the name 'vis_kurv' into a list of returned fields rather than declaring an action, leaving the agent to infer 'read the cart' from the name plus readOnlyHint.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as saet_antal_i_kurv or leveringstider. The agent must deduce on its own that this is the read-side counterpart to the basket-mutation sibling.

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