prepare_purchase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description's help. The description does add that the tool performs a budget comparison, clarifying it is a pure calculation, but says nothing about whether a plan is persisted, what happens when the budget is exceeded, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource first and the compute behavior second. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves useful detail (item shape, limits) unstated.

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 does describe the return concept (a plan with subtotal and budget comparison), which is a plus. But for a two-parameter computation taking a structured items array and a numeric budget, the definition remains thin on input semantics and on failure modes when the plan exceeds maxTotalIdr.

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 carries the burden. It does map both parameters to meaning: 'subtotal' derives from the items list and 'budget comparison' corresponds to maxTotalIdr. However it omits item structure (productId/quantity), the 30-item cap, quantity bounds, and the currency unit implied by the param name.

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 concrete verb+resource ('prepare a purchase plan') plus the inputs it operates on ('imported products') and its computation ('subtotal and budget comparison'). This is enough to separate it from read-style siblings like list_orders or search_products, though it never names an alternative.

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 a faint usage cue in 'from imported products', hinting the input comes from a prior import step, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer when to pick this over prepare_message or list_orders.

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