Prepare shopping-provider retry

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful boundary that this stages a retailer handoff and never places an order, but says nothing about auth/permissions, idempotency of a retry, or what state is changed by staging.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 simple one-parameter staging tool with annotation coverage, the purpose and the 'never places an order' boundary are adequate. However, it omits any hint about the prepare/confirm flow (siblings confirm_action/cancel_action exist) or what a successful stage produces, leaving a real gap.

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?

A single parameter (meal_request_id) at 0% schema description coverage; the schema itself only supplies a UUID pattern. The description ties the ID loosely to 'a saved meal request' but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the pattern.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'retrying the configured provider for a saved meal request.' An agent can tell it acts on a saved meal request via a shopping provider. It does not, however, name or exclude any sibling (e.g., prepare_create_meal_request, prepare_retry_customer_report), so differentiation relies on the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_meal_request or prepare_create_meal_request. The phrase 'it never places an order' scopes the behavior but does not route the agent among alternatives or state prerequisites.

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