preview_live_shopping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a preview is generated, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) it has. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be assumed to be safe.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the primary action and resource. However, it is perhaps too sparse, sacrificing valuable usage and parameter information for brevity. Still, it earns a high score for directness.

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 presence of many sibling tools (plan_week, preview_shopping, search_kroger, etc.), the description lacks essential context for an agent to effectively choose this tool. It doesn't explain when to use 'live' preview over other options, nor does it clarify the meaning of its parameters. The low parameter count and output schema help, but the description remains insufficient for confident tool selection.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its parameters (location_id and dinner_count), and the description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to provide context, but it fails entirely, leaving the agent uninformed about what these parameters control.

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 action and scope: 'Generate shopping preview using live Kroger product search.' It uses a specific verb ('generate'), names the resource ('shopping preview'), and adds 'live' to distinguish from the sibling tool 'preview_shopping', which likely uses non-live data. This differentiates it well.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_shopping or plan_week. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The agent is left to infer based solely on the name and the word 'live'.

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