shopping_list_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add real operational context: it requires the Firebase Web API key via MIGROS_FIREBASE_PLIST and points to the README for setup. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe ordering, pagination, or behavior when a list has no items, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a data-access tool.

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 short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the setup requirement and the id source. No filler sentences; the only slightly loose part is the parenthetical '(from Firestore)' plus README pointer, which are still informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be spelled out and the description correctly doesn't duplicate them. But with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should also cover the include_completed semantics and confirm read-only behavior; those omissions leave the definition only minimally complete for a two-parameter retrieval 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 both parameters. It explains the origin of list_id (from shopping_lists), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about include_completed, despite that flag's default of true determining whether completed items appear in the result.

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 names the resource precisely (items on a shopping list, sourced from Firestore) and enumerates the fields returned (name, quantity, note, done), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutating siblings like add_shopping_list_item and complete_shopping_list_item. The verb is only implied ('The items on a shopping list'), so it reads slightly as a resource label rather than an explicit 'list items' action.

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?

There is a useful prerequisite chain ('list_id comes from shopping_lists'), but no statement of when to use this versus the sibling list/read tools such as shopping_lists_firestore or shopping_list_user, and no guidance on when an agent should set include_completed.

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