ue_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that data is read from the checkout API keyed by draft rather than the rendered page, that two independent anchors 'throw instead of mixing two carts' (error rather than silent cross-contamination), and that the confirm_token is valid ~10 minutes and single-use. It stops short of stating permissions/auth needs or any throttling, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then a short 'Use this when' block. The mid-sentence field enumeration is long, but since there is no output schema it earns its place by telling the agent what will come back. The phrasing 'two independent anchors that throw' is slightly opaque but compact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description deliberately enumerates the returned fields (store, items, subtotal, fees, total, ETA, address, payment method) plus the confirm_token lifetime and single-use constraint. Combined with the usage ordering against ue_place, an agent has everything needed to invoke and act on this tool correctly.

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 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents `draft`. The description adds only the conceptual framing ('keyed by draft (not the page)'), which is useful context but not parameter-level syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Checkout snapshot for one cart', then enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings ue_cart (mutable cart state) and ue_place (order submission) because it positions itself as the trusted read-back step between them.

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 'Use this when' block gives an explicit condition and an explicit next step: call before placing an order, show the user exactly what is returned, and only call ue_place after confirmation. It names the alternative tool (ue_place) and the gating condition, so the sequencing is unambiguous.

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