List covered chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output contains 'offer counts,' 'usable unit price' counts, and 'ingredient tag' counts, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how stale the data might be, what 'this week' means relative to the optional week parameter, or return format/pagination. For a seemingly non-destructive read tool with no annotation coverage, the description gives some content context but omits behavioral details.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first specifies content, the second gives usage purpose. No filler, no redundancy, appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. This is a model of concise structuring.

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 there's no output schema, no annotations, and one ambiguous optional parameter, the description should carry more burden. It touches on what the output contains (counts) but doesn't explain the week parameter semantics, how 'usable unit price' and 'ingredient tag' are defined, or how results might be ordered/filtered. For a coverage-overview tool alongside 6 siblings, more detail on how results relate to the broader toolset would improve completeness.

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 is one parameter (week) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions 'this week's offer counts' which implies the week parameter affects the data window. However, the description doesn't clarify the expected format of the week value (ISO date, week number, date range) or what happens when it's omitted versus provided. The description adds modest meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves the week parameter's format and optionality semantics ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('List covered chains') and specifies the content scope: this week's offer counts, usable unit price counts, and ingredient tag counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'coverage' focus (which chains a meal plan can rely on), contrasting with siblings like search_offers or price_history. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or define what 'covered' precisely means against the set of available chains.

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 a clear usage context ('Use it to see what coverage a meal plan can rely on'), implying it's a planning-level overview tool rather than a specific search. However, it doesn't give explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like search_offers or cheapest_by_category for more targeted queries. No exclusions or explicit comparison to siblings.

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