get_checkouts

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 only says 'Fetch', which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it returns a paginated list, how the 'after' cursor is used for pagination, or any side effects. No details on response format or error behavior are given, which is a significant gap for a mutable store 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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy, front-loading the verb 'Fetch'. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with five parameters; it could benefit from mentioning pagination or filtering, but as a short description it is still efficient and readable.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and the minimal description, the description is inadequate. It does not explain that the tool returns a list of checkouts, how pagination works with 'after', or how the 'query' parameter interacts with the 'abandoned or active' scope. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall behavior and expected output are left unspecified.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Cursor for pagination', 'Number of checkouts to fetch'), so the description does not need to repeat this. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, hence the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'checkouts', with an explicit scope of 'abandoned or active' and 'from the store'. This distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'get_checkout' by implying a list operation, and from other checkout-related tools like 'complete_checkout' or 'get_checkout_branding_settings'.

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 for fetching multiple checkouts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_checkout' for a single checkout or 'get_returns_by_order' for other resource types. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the plural form.

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