verify_cart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it discloses the critical non-obvious side effect: items are silently auto-substituted with 'the best available replacement'. That is the key thing an agent must know. It does not mention auth requirements (login siblings exist) or what happens when no replacement is found, so it falls short of fully covering the mutation's edge cases.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the purpose and the usage trigger, followed by a short Args block. Nothing is wasted, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter already defaulted in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one parameter is explained. The main remaining gap is auth context given the login_* siblings, but for a single-parameter cart tool the description is essentially 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the single parameter: it explains store_id selects 'which store cart to verify' and enumerates the currently supported value ('tivtaam'). That meaningfully exceeds the bare schema type/default.

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 ('Re-check'), a specific resource ('every item in the cart'), and a distinct behavior ('automatically swap out-of-stock items'). This clearly separates it from siblings like show_cart or add_to_cart.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this after adding all items to a cart to catch anything that went out of stock between search and checkout.' That establishes the precise workflow stage, though it does not name a concrete alternative tool it should be chosen over or explicitly excluded against.

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