List checkouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'paginated,' which is already implied by the page/per_page schema; it discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, default sorting, or filtering 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though it is almost too terse for a six-parameter list endpoint.

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?

Read-only annotations and high schema coverage provide safety and most parameter meaning, while the description confirms a paginated list return. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the returned checkout shape or when listing is preferable to fetching a single checkout, leaving clear gaps.

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 83%, with account, include, per_page, store_id, and variant_id documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax beyond pagination, and the page parameter still lacks a schema description, making this baseline rather than enhanced.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns/List) and resource (checkouts) plus pagination scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_checkout or create_checkout or state what a checkout represents, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 no when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites. It only implies that the tool lists checkouts, without telling an agent when list_checkouts is preferable to get_checkout or create_checkout.

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