Pepesto Agent-to-Cart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavioral traits: 'This tool is FREE and needs NO API key or authentication. Nothing is matched or charged when you call it: matching products and pricing happen LAZILY only after the USER opens the returned link... the USER pays at checkout in the app — never here, never you.' This covers safety, cost, and lazy execution.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by bullet-point-style behavioral notes, and ending with explicit output handling instructions. Every sentence adds value 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 tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description fully explains the response format ('single block of Markdown that already contains a labeled, tappable link') and the tool's scope ('Covers 26 European supermarkets'). No gaps remain.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the shopping_list format: 'One item per line or comma-separated, e.g. "2 bananas\\nmilk\\n500g spaghetti".' For locale, it gives an example. This is sufficient but does not go beyond the schema significantly.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Turn a free-form shopping list into a ready-to-open Pepesto cart link.' It uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('shopping list into a cart link'), clearly distinguishing it from any sibling (none provided).

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle the output: 'Clients should surface that Markdown link AS-IS (render the link) and must NOT show the raw URL or rewrite the caption.' It also notes it is free and requires no authentication. However, no explicit alternatives are mentioned (no siblings exist).

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