get_cart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a modest amount beyond that: the 'open cart' precondition and the fact that quantities and selected options are included in the read.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the identifier and the returned content packed in without filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by stating what the read includes (quantities, selected options). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it does not say what happens when the cart is closed, empty, or nonexistent.

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, but it only restates the parameter name ('by cart_id') and omits the pattern constraint (1-100 alphanumeric/dash characters) or any format detail. With only one obvious identifier parameter, the gap is small but real.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('cart'), and scopes it to a single 'open cart by cart_id', which naturally separates it from the sibling list_carts. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the singular/lookup framing is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'open cart' implies a precondition (the cart has not been checked out), which is useful routing signal versus list_carts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so usage must be inferred.

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