cart_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrasing 'contents of the cart' implies a read-only snapshot and no side effects, which is the key trait, but it does not explicitly state that the cart is unmodified, nor does it mention authentication or data freshness. This is adequate but leaves room for explicit confirmation.

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 short phrase that delivers the essential content and totals semantics with no filler. Every word contributes, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the currency qualifier.

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 parameterless view with an output schema, the description covers the main information an agent needs: what is returned (contents and totals) and the currency. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly framing itself as a read-only cart view and pointing to when checkout_info might be more appropriate, but nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter vocabulary for the description to enrich. The only parameter-like detail, 'prices in rubles', usefully specifies the currency unit of the returned totals. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource ('cart') and what is returned (contents and totals in rubles), which clearly positions it as a read operation distinct from sibling cart mutations like cart_add, cart_set_quantity, and cart_clear. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not name the alternatives it differs from.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to call cart_view versus other cart-related or checkout tools. The description neither states conditions, prerequisites, nor exclusions, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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