Cheapest ingredients this week

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kg/l-only basis constraint and the reason (per-piece prices cannot be ranked), which is meaningful behavioral context. It partially covers limit behavior implicitly but doesn't discuss rate limits, auth, or grouping behavior in detail.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place. The description front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the critical constraint and the category-omission tip in a compact, efficient structure. Zero wasted words.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry a lot. It clearly states purpose, ranking basis, and category behavior. However, with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, some gap remains for week/limit/per_ingredient semantics and return-form behavior, making it slightly incomplete for a complex ranked-list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 undocumented parameters. It explains `category` (omitting compares across all categories) and clarifies the `basis` constraint (only kg/l). However, `week`, `limit`, and `per_ingredient` semantics are not explained beyond their schema definitions.

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 'cheapest offers per ingredient, grouped and ranked by unit price' — specific verb (compare/rank), resource (ingredients), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the ranking-by-unit-price mechanism. Clearly the primary meal-planning entry point.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'primary meal-planning entry point'. Provides concrete exclusion: 'Only kg and l bases are included, because per-piece prices cannot be ranked against them.' Gives clear guidance on omitting category to compare across all categories. This differentiates it from search_offers and other siblings.

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