review_order

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, adding the important workflow fact that it mutates delivery time but must not commit the order. It does not discuss side effects on the cart or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no fluff; the purpose leads, workflow follows, parameter hint last. The return-value enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Covers purpose, the confirmation workflow, and payment semantics. Since an output schema exists, the return list need not be restated, and the main remaining gap is delivery_time value format.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does well for payment (names payment_options and examples MSP_Ideal/WINKEL_Cash) but leaves delivery_time format unspecified (e.g., from get_delivery_times vs a timestamp), so compensation is partial.

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 precise verb+resource ('Prepare checkout without ordering') and enumerates the effects (sets delivery time, returns items/address/payment/total_to_pay). The phrase 'without ordering' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling place_order.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (place_order) and the gate that selects it ('Show this to the user and get explicit confirmation before calling place_order'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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