checkout_preview

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the essential trait that this is a read-only, side-effect-free quote rather than a mutation. It adds nothing about authentication requirements, caching/pricing freshness, or whether the quote is region-dependent — which is notable given the latitude/longitude inputs.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the scope is stated before the exclusions, which is the right order. It is telegraphic almost to the point of being cryptic ('Read a cart quote only'), but no sentence is wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a near-duplicate sibling (order_preview) to disambiguate against, the description does far too little. An agent still cannot tell what the returned quote contains, why location is mandatory, or when to choose this over order_preview.

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%: the only parameter documentation is the bare titles 'Latitude' and 'Longitude', and the description says nothing about them. It never explains why a cart quote needs coordinates (delivery availability, regional pricing, tax) or what range/format is expected, so the agent must guess at the purpose of both required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a cart quote') and draws a hard boundary around what the tool does not do (address/card selection, confirmation, order, payment). An agent can separate it from submit_order or cancel_order on that basis, but it never explains how it differs from the very similar sibling order_preview, which leaves the most likely confusion unresolved.

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 exclusions ('no address/card selection, confirmation, order or payment') implicitly route the agent away from this tool for any committed checkout action. However, there is no positive trigger condition, no named alternative (e.g. 'use order_preview for X, submit_order to place the order'), and no prerequisites such as being logged in or having items in the cart.

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