Order conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it confirms no booking occurs and explains that omitting 'store' causes retrieval for all retailers 'one after the other', which is a useful operational detail not obvious from annotations alone.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and quickly enumerates the returned data. It is efficient and contains no filler, though the parenthetical '(structured dates)' is slightly awkward and the sentence is dense enough that a bit more structural separation would help.

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 the presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential scope: what is returned, that store can be omitted to cover all retailers sequentially, and that no booking side effect occurs. It does not need to explain return values further, though it could briefly mention whether authentication or store preselection is required.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'store' enum and the omitted-equals-all behavior. The description restates the same omitted-store behavior but adds no further syntax or semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage rather than exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('order conditions'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: selected store, booked slot, next pickup and delivery slots, and minimum order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cart, set_store, and add_to_cart, which deal with cart contents and store selection rather than informational order conditions.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only informational nature and the closing 'Books nothing', which signals it should be used to inspect conditions rather than perform a booking. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as set_store or get_cart, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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