get_order_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation by stating 'Retrieves', but does not confirm idempotency or safety for repeated calls. It also omits error behavior for invalid/missing cart_key, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The partial transparency about what is returned is adequate but could be improved with explicit read-only or idempotency hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a list of retrieved items. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 that this is a simple read tool with a single parameter and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It lists the categories of data returned, eliminating the need to detail return values. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it is safe to call multiple times or that the cart must be active. Still, for the complexity level, the description is largely complete.

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% (one parameter with a clear description). The tool description adds only the context that the cart is 'specified' but does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of cart_key, validation rules). According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents the parameter and description adds little.

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 verb ('Get'/'Retrieves') and identifies the resource ('order options for a cart'). It lists specific categories (billing/shipping addresses, payment methods, shipping options) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_cart and get_order, which focus on different aspects of the cart/order workflow.

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 implies usage when retrieving order configuration details for a selected cart, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_cart or get_order. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., cart must exist) are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage context from the sibling names and general domain knowledge.

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