rami_levy_reorder_from_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that items are added to the cart without replacement, explains the meaning of cartTotal vs serverTotal, and details error semantics (transport vs items_rejected, including that rejected items are removed). This is excellent transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the algorithm, the non-replacing behavior, the output semantics, and the error handling. No redundancy or filler, with the core action front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main aspects: input parameters, side effects, return values, and failure modes. It could mention duplicate handling or interaction with existing cart items in more detail, but it is otherwise quite 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: numOrders controls the number of past orders examined (default 10, max 50) and minOccurrences sets the frequency threshold (default 3). This adds essential meaning absent from 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 defines the tool's operation: analyzing past orders, finding items meeting a frequency threshold, and adding them to the cart at median quantity. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like add_item (single item) and view_cart (inspection), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when a user wants to reorder frequent items from order history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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