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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches and adds the first matching result, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the product isn't found, which are important for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with search behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on prerequisites, errors, or return values, which could hinder agent effectiveness in edge cases.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('product' and 'quantity') adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'product' parameter is used for searching, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the action ('Add a product') and resource ('to the Instacart cart'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_search' by specifying it adds the first matching result, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'instacart_view_cart' or 'instacart_clear_cart'.

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 implies usage by mentioning it searches for the product and adds the first match, suggesting it's for adding items after a search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'instacart_search' for browsing or 'instacart_view_cart' for checking contents, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Remove all items') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, if it's reversible, what happens to saved items, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, side effects, return values, or error handling. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description is consistent.

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 states the specific action ('Remove all items') and target resource ('from the Instacart cart'), using precise verb+resource phrasing. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'instacart_view_cart' (which shows items) and 'instacart_add_to_cart' (which adds items).

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 implies usage context (when you want to empty the cart) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active cart or session) or exclusions (e.g., not for partial removal). The context is reasonable but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a URL and instructions for manual login, and it's part of a multi-step flow. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements beyond the basic flow.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it in context. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error or edge case handling.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Initiate') and resource ('Instacart login flow'), distinguishing it from siblings like instacart_status (verification) and instacart_logout (termination). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Initiate Instacart login flow') and provides clear alternatives for next steps ('use instacart_status to verify'). It includes prerequisites (manual user completion) and distinguishes it from other login-related tools in the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of clearing session/cookies and resetting authentication state, which is appropriate for a logout tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., loss of cart data, need to re-login for subsequent operations) or error conditions.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a logout operation. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. A 5 would require more behavioral details (e.g., confirmation of logout success), but it's largely adequate.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.

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 states the specific action ('Clear saved Instacart session and cookies') and the resource affected (authentication state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like instacart_login by focusing on logout/reset rather than login or other cart operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to log out or reset authentication state.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives like instacart_login for authentication or other tools for cart management.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it describes the dual-mode operation (preview vs. actual placement), emphasizes the critical safety rule for 'confirm=true', and implies mutation (placing an order). However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or side effects like payment processing.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage rules and behavioral context. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys all necessary information without 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it omits details on what happens after placement (e.g., order confirmation, errors) or prerequisites (e.g., requires a logged-in session or populated cart), leaving minor 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'confirm' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the schema's warning about user confirmation and preview behavior, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 states the verb ('Place') and resource ('the order'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'instacart_preview_order' (which it explicitly references) and 'instacart_add_to_cart'. It specifies the core action of submitting an order, not just modifying or viewing cart contents.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Set confirm=true only when you have explicit user confirmation' and 'Without confirm=true, this returns a preview instead of placing the order'. It also implicitly contrasts with 'instacart_preview_order' by noting the preview functionality, offering clear alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'shows cart summary, delivery window, and any issues' which describes output behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or side effects. For a preview tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by specific output details.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, for a tool that likely interacts with user accounts and shopping data, it should ideally mention authentication requirements or relationship to other cart operations. The description is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool does and what information it provides.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Preview order before placing' is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_place_order' (which actually places the order) and 'instacart_view_cart' (which likely shows current cart contents without preview details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The description implies usage context ('before placing') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'instacart_view_cart' or 'instacart_status'. It suggests this is a pre-check before order placement, but lacks clear when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisite requirements.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions returns but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether results are real-time. The phrase 'availability' hints at dynamic data but doesn't clarify freshness or limitations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and resource, the second specifies output. It's front-loaded with core functionality and efficiently structured, earning its place without 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?

Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and returns but lacks context on authentication, errors, or sibling differentiation. For a search tool in an e-commerce context, more behavioral guidance would improve completeness.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'query' relates to products and 'maxResults' affects output count, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation.

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 states the action ('Search for products') and resource ('on Instacart'), with specific output details ('product names, prices, and availability'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'instacart_add_to_cart' by focusing on search rather than cart manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'instacart_stores' which might also involve product discovery.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., login status), compare to 'instacart_stores' for browsing, or specify use cases like price checking versus availability lookup, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Set[s] delivery address or zip code,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this requires authentication, if it's reversible, what happens to existing addresses, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, side effects, return values, error handling, and how it fits into the broader Instacart workflow, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the input schema (including examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('delivery address or zip code for Instacart orders'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'instacart_status' or 'instacart_stores' which might also involve location-related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether login is required), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'instacart_place_order' or 'instacart_preview_order' in the ordering workflow.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (checking login status/session info) and context (verification before other actions), but lacks details about what specific information is returned, error conditions, or how it determines authentication status. It's adequate but has gaps in behavioral specifics.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what information is returned (e.g., user ID, session validity, error messages) to be fully comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered, maintaining a baseline score for parameterless tools.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'verify') and resources ('Instacart login status', 'session info'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication verification rather than cart management, ordering, or other actions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before performing other actions.' This provides clear guidance on its role as a prerequisite check for authentication-dependent operations among the sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get list of available stores for the current delivery location.' It specifies the action ('Get list') and resource ('available stores'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'instacart_search' or 'instacart_set_address'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'instacart_status', which might also relate to location context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'current delivery location' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether an address must be set first) or when to prefer this over other tools like 'instacart_search' for store-related queries. This leaves the agent with minimal usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned ('items, quantities, and totals') but does not address other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by sibling tools like 'instacart_login'), rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires an active session. This leaves significant gaps for a tool in a context with authentication-related siblings.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('View current Instacart cart contents') and adds necessary specifics ('including items, quantities, and totals') concisely.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It does not address contextual needs like authentication (implied by sibling tools) or error handling, which are important in this server's context. The description is complete enough for a read-only view tool but misses broader integration aspects.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it effectively handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary detail.

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 states the specific verb ('View') and resource ('current Instacart cart contents'), with explicit details about what is included ('items, quantities, and totals'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'instacart_add_to_cart' or 'instacart_clear_cart' by focusing on read-only viewing rather than modification.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current Instacart cart contents,' suggesting it should be used to check cart status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'instacart_preview_order' for order details or 'instacart_status' for general status), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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