Basket guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that no credentials are needed and the content is purely informational ('How the wishlist basket works and how to integrate it well'), implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. It could more explicitly say 'does not modify anything,' but the guide framing is sufficient.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that packs a lot of useful information: scope, topics, prerequisites, and usage pointer. Every part earns its place without filler or repetition of the schema.

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 documentation tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the guide contains, that no credentials are needed, and when to read it. It does not explicitly state the return format, but for a guide tool this is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the exact content areas (config, embedding, checkout, events) that map to the enum values, giving meaning beyond the bare enum names. It does not explain the 'all' default or describe output format, but the single parameter is simple and self-explanatory with this context.

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 identifies the tool as a conceptual guide to the wishlist basket, covering config, embedding, checkout, and events. It specifies the resource (wishlist basket) and the purpose (understand and integrate it well), which distinguishes it from siblings like snippet_basket or docs_search.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Read before baskets_create' and 'No credentials needed.' It tells the agent when to consult the guide, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative sibling tools or state exclusions.

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