Abandoned Checkouts List

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for what it adds: the required read_orders scope, the pinned API version, and the exact response envelope shape — the latter matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting rate limits or how the 6-hour/30-day window interacts with the created_at filters.

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 tight lines: what it lists and its scope first, then endpoint, scope requirement, API version, and return shape. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with zero required parameters and a well-documented schema, this is nearly complete — the missing output schema is compensated by the explicit response envelope. The remaining gap is the unresolved interaction between the fixed abandonment window and the caller-supplied date filters.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the description adds no per-parameter detail. It does implicitly constrain the date semantics (only checkouts abandoned > 6 hours and within 30 days), but leaves ambiguous whether created_at_min/created_at_max can reach outside that window — which is exactly the clarification an agent would need.

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 ('List abandoned checkouts') plus the defining domain criteria: abandoned > 6 hours ago and up to 30 days back. An agent immediately knows what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular tiendanube_abandoned_checkouts_get sibling, but the list/get distinction is conventional enough to infer.

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 implied by the definition — the time window tells the agent this is for recent-abandonment reporting — but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or when-not guidance. With a singular get sibling and related carts/orders tools present, naming the alternative would have removed guesswork.

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