Inspect & Manage Buy Now Shopping Cart (Košík)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the non-obvious operational fact that authentication is required. It does not disclose per-action side effects (e.g. whether REMOVE affects an existing checkout session, or whether ADD fails on out-of-stock offers), which a multi-mode mutation tool would benefit from.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, then a compact enumeration of each action with its enum value. The trailing auth note is short and useful. The long parenthetical list makes it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

With five modes, five parameters and no output schema, the description covers what each mode does but not what comes back — e.g. VIEW's cart contents/ids or CHECKOUT_OPTIONS' shipping and payment payload. An agent knows how to invoke it but must discover return shape and failure modes by calling it.

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 schema already ties offerId, quantity, cartItemId and cartItemIds to specific actions, including where cartItemId comes from. The description only restates the action-to-operation mapping and adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (Aukro Buy Now shopping cart) and enumerates all five operations with their exact enum values, so an agent can distinguish VIEW/ADD/UPDATE_QUANTITY/REMOVE/CHECKOUT_OPTIONS immediately. It is clearly a cart-management tool, distinct from siblings like aukro_place_bid or aukro_my_bids_and_purchases.

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?

Each action is paired with its purpose, which gives an agent enough context to pick the right mode, and the authentication prerequisite is stated. What is missing is explicit routing versus alternatives (e.g. when a Buy Now cart action is preferable to aukro_place_bid or aukro_bargain_offer) and per-action preconditions such as ADD needing a valid offerId.

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