market_basket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as comparing and returning results, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no data is mutated, nor does it mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (LATAM differentiator) but lacks sufficient transparency.

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?

Description is concise, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key differentiators. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters or usage steps), but remains efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for a comparison tool. It explains what it does, how to use it (pass items), and adds regional context. However, it lacks details about return format or behavior when no matches found, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds some context for the 'items' parameter ('Pass items with name and qty') but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'compare' and resource 'total basket cost across retailers'. It specifies that items are passed with name and qty, and returns per-store totals and cheapest retailer. The LATAM differentiator and mention of 41 verified retailers across 8 countries further clarifies scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Description implies usage by stating 'Pass items with name and qty' and optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_compare or market_search. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, so usage context is implied but not explicit.

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