show_cart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior ('if omitted, shows all carts'), which the schema's bare 'default: null' does not convey, but it omits any mention of read-only safety, auth/login prerequisites, or per-store availability.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter note is short. The raw 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but does not waste meaningful space.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the single optional parameter is well covered. The main gap is absence of any auth/prerequisite context, which login_* siblings suggest matters here.

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, and it does: it enumerates the accepted values ('shufersal' or 'tivtaam') and explains the omission semantics. It stops short of noting these are the only valid values or what happens with an unrecognized store_id.

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 ('Show') and resource ('current cart contents'), making the read intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling 'verify_cart', which an agent could plausibly confuse with viewing cart contents.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like verify_cart or add_to_cart. The description never states what condition should select this tool over its siblings.

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