wafle_checkout_cart_recover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by defining what qualifies as an abandoned cart and clarifying that results are filtered by a customer email hash. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the safety profile.

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 sentences: the first packs the core purpose and definition; the second explains the contextual use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and clear read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the core semantics (abandoned definition, email hash filter) and intended usage. It does not describe return values or pagination, but in the absence of an output schema, the term 'List' implies an array. The description is sufficiently complete 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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents 'slug', 'since', and 'customer_email_hash' with descriptions. The tool description mentions 'customer email hash' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or add parameter-level value.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'abandoned carts', and provides a precise definition: 'cart_token has items but no paid order in wafle_orders'. It also scopes to 'for a customer email hash', distinguishing it from broader abandoned-cart listers like wafle_abandoned_list. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 says 'Used by retargeting drip flows to surface ... nudges', which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is concrete. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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