get_source_cart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description's disclosure that results come as a compact tree with full element hierarchy is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it stops short of covering volume, scoping (which sources count as 'cart'), or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a distinct routing benefit rather than restating the first. No waste, though the wording is slightly loose around 'cart'.

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 read-only tool this is close, and the description partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing the tree view. Still, it leaves 'cart' undefined and does not indicate result scope or size, so an agent cannot fully predict what it receives.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all cart global sources') plus the output shape ('compact tree view'), so the agent knows what it returns. It partially differentiates from siblings by referencing get_global_source_detail, though the ambiguous term 'cart' and the overlap with list_global_sources keep it from a 5.

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 offers one routing hint — that a separate call to get_global_source_detail is unnecessary — which implies this is a one-stop retrieval. However it never states when to prefer it over the very similarly named list_global_sources or how it differs, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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