List Abandoned Checkouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious filter constraint — only checkouts where completedAt is null — which is real behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result volume.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The payload summary comes first and the scope constraint second, both front-loaded and information-dense.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the fields returned. For a simple read-only listing with optional filters, nothing essential is missing beyond pagination guidance.

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 coverage is 67% (limit has no description text but carries default/min/max; after and query are documented). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it lands at the baseline for a partially documented 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list abandoned checkouts) and enumerates the payload fields returned (customer details, line items, pricing, recovery URL). It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but no sibling performs a comparable listing, so confusion risk is low.

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 'useful for identifying recovery opportunities and lost revenue' implies the business context for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., shopify_list_orders) for cases where completed checkouts are also wanted.

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