get_abandonment

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating that the tool returns items, prices, customer info, and abandonment timing, and by noting that the fields returned can be customized. It does not mention error handling or missing-ID behavior, but it clearly communicates the read-only, data-returning nature of the operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose, then lists the returned data categories, then mentions the customization option. Every sentence earns its place.

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 by-ID retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose and return content well. However, the fields parameter is not explained in terms of acceptable values, and with no output schema, the agent does not know the exact default response structure or how to request specific fields beyond the vague 'customize' wording.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by confirming that the 'fields' parameter controls which fields are returned, but it does not enumerate possible field names or explain how to structure the fields object, which remains opaque due to additionalProperties being true.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and names the exact resource ('cart or checkout abandonments') with a clear lookup mechanism (by ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which target abandonment records.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have an abandonment ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or call out any other tool. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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