check_store_order_eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic check function without revealing side effects (expected to be none), required permissions, or edge cases (e.g., empty shopping note, partial eligibility). This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to anticipate tool behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence of 14 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word is necessary. There is no superfluous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of eligible items, or error). It also lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., must have a shopping note with products). The description is too minimal for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool operates on the current shopping note, which is not explicitly part of the schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: checking if products in a shopping note are orderable from a store. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('shopping note products eligibility'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'apply_store_product_order' (which places orders) and other shopping note tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a prerequisite check before ordering, nor does it list any conditions or exclusions. The context implies it should be used before 'apply_store_product_order', but this is not explicit.

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