Abandoned Checkouts Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds the required OAuth scope (read_orders) and API version, but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or about payload size behavior.

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?

Four short lines with the operation stated first, followed by endpoint, scope and API version — no filler. It is efficient, though the metadata lines are terse and could be consolidated.

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-by-ID tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly, including endpoint and auth scope. Error/not-found behavior is the only notable omission.

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 100%, with id, fields and response_format each documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond repeating {id} as a path placeholder — it does not explain the fields projection or the markdown/json choice.

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 and resource ('Get one abandoned checkout') and the underlying endpoint GET /checkouts/{id}, so it is clearly a single-resource fetch. The 'one' plus the {id} path implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tiendanube_abandoned_checkouts_list, though the sibling is never named.

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 required 'id' in the path implies the tool is for retrieving a known checkout, and usage is implied by the list/get split. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and the alternative list tool is not referenced.

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