View Sixty60 cart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing that prices are in cents and that totals are line-price sums excluding delivery fees, which prevents a plausible misinterpretation. It does not, however, say anything about authentication requirements or whether an empty/missing cart returns an empty list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then unit convention, then totals semantics plus the handoff to the checkout tool. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 one-optional-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (currency units and what "total" means) and points to the sibling that resolves the rest. The remaining gap is operational context such as login/account requirements, which is not stated.

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% and the mode enum values are already documented with their shipping meaning, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's plural "carts" hints that two cart variants exist, which is mild corroboration but adds no syntax, default, or edge-case detail 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?

"Show the account's carts" gives a concrete verb and resource, and the parenthetical ties it to the carts the Sixty60 app displays, so the agent knows this is a read of the user's active cart state. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing to sixty60_checkout_preview for fees/total, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sixty60_cart_add/remove/clear beyond the verb.

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 second half explicitly routes a related question to an alternative tool: "use sixty60_checkout_preview for delivery fees and the payable total." That is a real when-to-use-which rule. It stops short of a full 5 because there is no explicit statement of when not to call this or any preconditions (e.g., needing an authenticated account).

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