Read the web visitor cart

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by clarifying that no token is required, that this is the anonymous visitor cart, and by enumerating the HATEOAS state and item-line fields returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then efficiently packs in the relevant response contents, usage context, and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler or redundant restating is present.

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-parameter read operation with a detailed output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete: it identifies the required input, explains how to obtain it, states when to use it, names the sibling to avoid, and notes the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents `basket_id` as returned by `web_add_to_cart` and the current web basket. The description reinforces this same information and ties it to the verification workflow, but it does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 first sentence names the specific verb and resource: 'Read the anonymous (visitor) Alza web checkout cart by basket_id'. It also disambiguates from the authenticated `cart` sibling and references related tools like `web_add_to_cart` and `web_place_order`, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to verify a `web_add_to_cart` operation or to inspect the web cart before `web_place_order`. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do not use for the authenticated account cart — that is `cart`', which is exactly the guidance an agent needs.

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