generate_shopping_list

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it uses locally saved recipe details once per unique recipe at original batch size, combines compatible quantities exactly, surfaces unresolved measurements instead of hiding them, and avoids inferred conversions. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and gives the agent reliable expectations about edge-case handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses every subsequent sentence to communicate meaningful behavioral constraints and edge-case policies. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: input source, uniqueness and batching behavior, quantity combination policy, and explicit non-behaviors. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema only provides the name and length for plan_id, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that plan_id refers to a saved plan whose locally stored recipe details are consumed. For a single, simple identifier this is sufficient context, though it does not describe how to obtain or validate the ID.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Consolidate a saved plan's ingredients into a shopping list.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_meal_plan (which likely returns the plan itself) and search_recipes (which finds recipes). It also includes the important scope qualifier 'without writes'.

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 implies the tool is used when a saved plan exists and a consolidated ingredient list is needed, and it states what the tool does not do (no scaling, no conversions, no upstream API calls). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer another tool, such as get_meal_plan or get_recipe_details.

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