uber_eats_checkout_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: the tool is non-mutating (does NOT place order), requires confirmation flow, and defines a step-by-step interaction contract. The 'MUST' list details the exact behavioral requirements an agent must follow, which fully compensates for absent 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The numbered list is well-structured. While everything earns its place, the list could be slightly tightened; however, given the interaction contract requires clear steps, the verbosity is justified.

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?

This is a complex, workflow-critical tool (pre-checkout step in a multi-step ordering process). The description fully covers the confirmation flow, what belongs in the summary, and the ordering constraint relative to place_order. The output schema exists, so return values need no additional explanation. Complete for the tool's role.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there's no param burden to carry. The description's baseline is 4 for a zero-parameter tool, and it adds no misleading param info. It appropriately focuses on process rather than parameters since there are none.

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 'previews the order with full price breakdown' and explicitly notes it 'does NOT place the order,' distinguishing it from uber_eats_place_order among siblings. The contrast with place_order is implicit but clear enough.

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 explicitly states when to call it ('always call this before place_order'), provides a numbered workflow (show summary, ask payment, ask tip, show total with tip, ask explicit confirmation), and specifies NOT to call place_order until explicit confirmation. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance with clear exclusions and alternatives.

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