ht_list_upcoming_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the returned payload ('the next pickup, its window and status') and the empty-result semantics ('Empty when nothing is scheduled'), which prevents an agent from misreading an empty response as an error. It does not cover auth or ordering of multiple orders, but the key traits are disclosed.

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 em-dash-joined sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the return contents and the empty case. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 and no parameters, the description's brief sketch of returned fields and the empty-state behavior carries the burden well. A little more on whether multiple upcoming orders are returned or only the next one would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to scope the call.

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 and resource ('List Harris Teeter orders') narrowed to a defined subset ('placed but not yet picked up'), which implicitly separates it from the broader ht_list_orders. It stops short of naming the sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the scope 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 'placed but not yet picked up' and 'the next pickup' imply the use case (checking what's coming up), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or direction to ht_list_orders for order history. Usage 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.