preview_shopping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'mock product matches' which hints at non-real data, but it does not disclose whether this tool performs side effects, requires authentication, or is a read-only preview. The behavior remains ambiguous.

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, albeit informative, sentence. It front-loads the primary action and lists key outputs without wasted words, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 an output schema, return values are covered, but the description still lacks essential context about the role of dinner_count, the exact meaning of 'mock product matches', and the relationship to the live preview sibling. Overall, it is insufficient for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 only parameter, dinner_count, has a default but no description in the schema or in the tool description. The description does not explain how this parameter affects the shopping list or budget, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 uses the verb 'generate' and lists specific outputs (shopping list, mock product matches, allergy review flags, and budget), making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling preview_live_shopping, leaving ambiguity about when this specific variant is appropriate.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_live_shopping or plan_week. The description gives no context for selection.

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