Попытки оформления

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It adds behavioral context about output shape and header count: limit=0 means all attempts and total count is shown in the header, which is useful beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, returned fields, use case, and parameter edge case are covered in three compact lines. The most important context (read-only, UNKNOWN reconciliation) is front-loaded, with no filler.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It conveys when to call it, what it returns, how limit behaves, and what the magic value 0 means — nothing essential is missing.

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 schema has one parameter, `limit`, with no schema-level description, but the tool description fully documents it: 'how many recent attempts to show (0 = all)' and notes the total count in the header. This adds real semantic value beyond the raw integer schema.

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 a specific resource — recent grocery checkout attempts — and a specific verb: show/display. It also states the exact use case (reconciliation after an UNKNOWN checkout result) and the returned fields, which clearly separates it from siblings like grocery_checkout and grocery_order_status.

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 description gives an explicit trigger condition: use it after checkout returns an indeterminate UNKNOWN result, when reconciliation is needed. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of the strongest possible guidance.

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