Get ingredients on hand

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful scope context ('pantry/fridge/spice inventory the household already has'), but does not disclose behavior such as staleness, ordering, or whether the result reflects real-time state.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first defines the resource and scope, the second states the intended use case. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inventory getter with an output schema and clarifying annotations, the description is complete. It conveys what the tool returns conceptually and why an agent would call it, and the output schema covers return details.

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?

There are no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the described scope is enough to understand that no arguments are needed.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only lookup of the household's current pantry, fridge, and spice inventory. It distinguishes the resource from shopping-list tools by specifying 'already has', but it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling get_* 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?

The phrase 'Used to trim the shopping list' gives a clear practical context for when this tool is useful. It does not mention exclusions or compare with alternatives like update_ingredients, but for a simple zero-parameter getter this is adequate guidance.

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