Zé loadCheckout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds an important semantic clarification: despite the 'checkout' name, this tool does not complete payment. This goes beyond simply repeating annotations and helps prevent misuse. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact: two short sentences with no filler. The read-only nature is stated first, and the key exclusion about payment completion is front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, this is minimally viable. However, it never states what the loaded checkout contains or what the response looks like, and it leaves parameter semantics undefined. An agent could use it correctly but would miss important context about the returned data.

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?

The description provides no information about the two parameters, privacy_mode and response_format. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics, but it does not even mention them. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but a tool definition should clarify what 'summary', 'structured', 'raw', and the response formats actually affect.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only checkout loader and explicitly states that it does not complete payment. This distinguishes it from payment-completing siblings like ze_complete_checkout and ze_place_order, though it does not name them directly. The core purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Read-only loadCheckout' conveys when to use the tool (to load checkout state without mutating anything), and 'Does not complete payment' is an explicit when-not that routes agents away from using it as a payment-completion step. However, it does not mention alternative tools by name or provide a fuller decision tree among the many siblings.

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