Get Account Cart Operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: it is backend-trusted only and access is scoped to 'this token's account', implying authorization boundaries. It stops short of stating failure behavior or what happens with an unknown/foreign operation_id.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious format constraint. No filler or repetition. Slightly compressed jargon ('plan/replacement') costs a little clarity, but the structure is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a two-parameter read tool the description covers purpose and one parameter format, but omits the guest-vs-account distinction from get_cart_operation and any explanation of session_token, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning for operation_id by noting that replacement operations use request_id as 32 lowercase hex digits without hyphens, matching the schema pattern. However, session_token receives no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('a plan/replacement belonging to this token's account'), and the account scoping differentiates it from the guest-facing sibling get_cart_operation. The terminology drifts from the name ('operation' vs 'plan/replacement'), but it usefully clarifies what an operation actually is. Clear enough for selection without naming the sibling explicitly.

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 'Trusted backend' prefix implies the calling context (server-side, trusted clients only), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_cart_operation or what precondition (e.g. an existing prepared/replacement operation) must hold. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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