GetCartsId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions expanding relations and selecting fields, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-free but potentially complex operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds optional capabilities in a second sentence. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying key information.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, error conditions, authentication, and response structure, which are crucial for a retrieval tool that might involve complex field selection or relation expansion.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'fields' parameter usage ('select the fields that should be returned') and hints at 'id' for retrieval, but doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID requirements, fields syntax), purpose of 'fields', or default behaviors, adding minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a cart by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'GetCarts' (which likely lists multiple carts) or 'GetCartsId' vs other 'GetXId' tools, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid cart ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetCarts' for listing carts or 'PostCarts' for creating one, leaving usage context unclear.

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