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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: the guide is localized to the household's language, and critically, the member — not the tool — places the order. That boundary prevents an agent from assuming this tool executes a purchase. It does not describe the guide's length or format, which keeps it below a 5.

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, both front-loaded with the key information (what is returned, then the scope limit that the member places the order). No redundant restatement of the tool name or the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, localization, and the crucial non-action boundary. The only gap is that 'guide' is never characterized (steps? instructions? links?), leaving the agent to discover the return shape on first call.

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 coverage is 100% and the store enum already documents 'oda', 'meny', 'other' and the legacy 'annen' alias, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only alludes to 'an online store's basket' without adding format or selection guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — returning Bryti's guide for putting the household's shopping list into a named store's basket — which is clearly distinct from get_shopping_list (returns the list) and get_stores (lists stores). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when the household wants to move their shopping list into an online store's basket. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., 'use get_shopping_list to see the items first'), so the agent must infer the call context.

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