list_carts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'admin view' hints at permission requirements, 'pagination' and 'optional status filter' describe request controls, and 'totalValue is in minor units' clarifies a response field. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error handling, rate limits, or response structure beyond that single field.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('List shopping carts') and packs in essential details (admin view, status filter, pagination, totalValue units). Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, who can use it, filtering, pagination, and a key field unit. However, it lacks any detail about the response format (e.g., array of carts, fields included) and doesn't mention authentication beyond 'admin view'. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'optional status filter' and 'pagination' which map to the status, skip, and limit parameters, but it doesn't explain the semantics of skip/limit (e.g., defaults, range) or the meaning of the status enum values. The description gives only a high-level hint, leaving agents to infer specifics from the 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?

The description clearly states 'List shopping carts (admin view)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_orders by explicitly naming the resource (carts) and adds scope (admin view), so an agent can tell it apart without ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context by noting 'admin view' and mentions optional status filter and pagination, which implies usage for listing carts with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., no mention of when to use list_orders instead) or any exclusions. The context is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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