checkout_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral fact beyond the schema — that authentication is required — and implies a read-only aggregate view, but says nothing about session/state sensitivity, whether the context is cached or live, or failure modes when no active basket exists.

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?

A single compact line with the resource name front-loaded and contents listed after the colon; nothing is wasted. It is slightly cryptic as a fragment ('v4' is unexplained) but well structured for its length.

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 explained, and with zero parameters the tool is mechanically simple. However, in a sibling set dense with checkout_* tools, the description leaves the agent guessing which one to call, which is the main completeness gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 names the resource ('Checkout context') and enumerates its contents: basket, slot, payment, totals. That is specific enough to know what comes back, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like checkout_summary, checkout_payment_options, checkout_timeslots, or checkout_delivery_addresses.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires login'. There is no statement of when to prefer this aggregate context over the granular checkout_* siblings, and no exclusions or call-order advice for a checkout flow.

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