instacart_preview_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'shows cart summary, delivery window, and any issues' which describes output behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or side effects. For a preview tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly concise: two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by specific output details.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, for a tool that likely interacts with user accounts and shopping data, it should ideally mention authentication requirements or relationship to other cart operations. The description is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool does and what information it provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview order before placing' is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_place_order' (which actually places the order) and 'instacart_view_cart' (which likely shows current cart contents without preview details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage context ('before placing') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'instacart_view_cart' or 'instacart_status'. It suggests this is a pre-check before order placement, but lacks clear when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisite requirements.

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