tiendanube_get_abandoned_checkout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates it is a retrieval (GET) operation and notes that omitting fields returns everything. However, it does not disclose error cases (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. Behavior is basic but adequate.

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 a supplementary clause. Every part earns its place, and there is zero waste. It is concise yet informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing included components (customer, items, totals). However, it does not mention error conditions or that the response is a single object. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more thorough.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining special values for 'fields' ('all' or '*') and the effect of omitting it. This is a useful nuance that aids correct invocation.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'a single abandoned checkout by ID', and specifies included sub-resources (customer, items, totals). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'tiendanube_list_abandoned_checkouts' (list vs single) and 'tiendanube_get_checkout' (non-abandoned).

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 provides guidance on the 'fields' parameter (omit or set to all/*) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Implicitly it is for retrieving a specific abandoned checkout, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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