get_cart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read ('Busca') but says nothing about authentication requirements, what happens on an invalid/expired token, whether the cart is mutated, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it forgoes the context a slightly longer description could have provided.

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 one-parameter read against a fully described schema, the description is minimally adequate. With no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the auth/prerequisite and failure behavior gaps that the structured fields cannot fill.

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 single cartToken parameter is already documented. The description only restates that lookup is 'pelo token' and does not clarify the token's origin or format, so it adds no meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca um carrinho de compras') plus the lookup key ('pelo token'), which lets an agent distinguish it from create_cart among the siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling it complements or the write counterpart.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing signal is implicit (read via token vs. create_cart), and the description never says whether the token must come from create_cart or an authorize_entry flow.

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