cart_view

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: "View" signals a read operation and the sentence usefully discloses what the response contains. It does not state that there are no side effects, whether authentication or a session/cart context is required, or how multi-store results are shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a compact enumeration of what is returned. Every clause earns its place; the only mild cost is that the list is longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (shipping costs, pickup locations, free shipping thresholds, grand totals) is genuinely load-bearing and tells the agent what to expect. The remaining gaps — auth/session requirements and the read-only guarantee — are modest for a zero-required-parameter view tool with fully documented parameters.

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%, so all three parameters (shop, shipping_method, country_destination) are already documented with defaults and behavior. The description's mentions of shipping costs and pickup locations loosely map to shipping_method/country_destination but add no syntax, valid values, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

"View the current shopping cart" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the enumerated return contents (shipping costs, pickup locations, thresholds, totals) confirm it is the read counterpart to cart_add_item/cart_update_item. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent infers the read/write split from names rather than being told.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling cart mutation tools, no prerequisite (e.g. items must be added first), and no indication of whether it is safe to call repeatedly. The only usage-like guidance lives in the schema's shop parameter (omit to view all carts), not in the description.

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