optimize_shopping_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (searching across all supermarkets, calculating total costs, showing savings) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no supermarkets are active. For a tool that likely involves external API calls and calculations, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it includes repetitive elements (e.g., 'Perfect for' list could be condensed) and uses excessive formatting (🔥, ALL CAPS). Some sentences, like 'This is the most powerful feature', do not add essential information. It could be more streamlined while retaining key details.

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 complexity of a tool that searches across multiple supermarkets and calculates costs, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's high-level behavior and benefits but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with significant computational and external dependencies, more context would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'listId' documented as 'ID of the shopping list to optimize'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('find the best supermarket', 'searches for every product', 'calculates the total cost') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_prices' or 'find_nearby_supermarkets' by emphasizing optimization of an entire shopping list across all supermarkets. It explicitly mentions the resource (shopping list) and scope (all supermarkets in Argentina).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('perfect for maximizing savings, planning where to shop, comparing complete shopping costs'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for entire shopping list optimization rather than individual product comparisons, which helps differentiate from tools like 'compare_prices'.

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