Meal Plan Shopping Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool scans the meal plan, finds scheduled recipes, and adds unfulfilled ingredients. It also notes the optional date range filter. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation or a mutation, whether it overwrites existing shopping list items, or whether it can be undone. The description is decent but leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence explains the workflow and optional filtering. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 has only 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow and the optional date filter. The only gap is the lack of clarity on whether the operation is destructive or reversible, but for a tool with this simplicity, the description is sufficient.

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 (start_date and end_date) with format and inclusivity. The description adds the context that these filter the meal plan scan, which is helpful but not deeply beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Add missing ingredients'), a resource ('shopping list'), and the source ('all planned recipes' / meal plan). It also distinguishes itself from a simple shopping list add by describing the workflow it automates ('plan meals → shop' in one step). This is clear and specific.

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 clearly explains when to use it: when you want to add missing ingredients for all planned recipes to the shopping list. It also mentions the optional date range filter, which helps the agent decide how to scope the call. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., when only adding a single item, use shopping_list_add_tool).

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