ht_get_checkout

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe read against an external service, so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully adds that the response includes the review/place link, but says nothing about empty-state behavior (no draft present), staleness of the draft, or whether reading has any side effect on the session.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, action verb first, with a field list that directly tells the agent what arrives back. The enumeration is long but every item earns its place as a payload preview.

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-value burden and does so by listing the payload fields plus the review link. The remaining gaps — absence of a draft, and the unmentioned view parameter — are minor for a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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 100% and the single 'view' enum is documented in detail in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions 'view' or which projection is appropriate, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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-plus-resource pairing ('Show the current ... checkout draft') and enumerates the concrete contents — items, pickup window, coupons, fees, tax, total, payment card, review link. The distinction from ht_start_checkout is implied by 'current' versus starting one, but the description never names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'current checkout draft' implies the situation (a draft already exists and the agent wants to inspect it), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as ht_get_cart or ht_start_checkout. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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