checkout_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does it well: it discloses the authorization requirement, confirms the tool is non-mutating, and explains that it returns a summarized digest rather than raw output. It also warns about sensitive personal data and advises against dumping the full result into the model context, which is valuable behavioral guidance beyond any structured metadata.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the tool's purpose, then adds preconditions, side-effect clarification, and a practical output-handling warning. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what data is returned, authorization requirements, the fact that no order is placed, and how to handle the sensitive response. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no arguments are needed, so there is no parameter semantics gap. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns instead of trying to document nonexistent parameters.

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 providing checkout data: recipient, addresses, delivery slots, and totals. It also explicitly states 'Заказ не оформляет' (does not place an order), which distinguishes it from order-placing actions, though it lacks a direct verb like 'retrieves' and does not name a specific sibling for contrast.

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?

It states a necessary precondition ('Требует авторизации') and an explicit exclusion ('Заказ не оформляет'), giving the agent a clear sense of when this tool is appropriate for viewing checkout info. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond not placing an order, so it falls short of a 5.

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