Get Shopping List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing a display convention not in the schema: "[x] marks items already ticked off (owned)" and that IDs are stable handles for the mutation tools. It does not cover empty-list behavior or how the openWorld hint manifests (e.g., synced account data), leaving a small gap.

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, no filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the ID/consumer note second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is close to complete: it explains contents and the tick convention. Minor omissions such as ordering, emptiness, or whether the list is account-scoped keep it just short of full 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It appropriately spends its words on output conventions instead of inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Show the shopping list") and enumerates exactly what is returned: recipes, their ingredients, and hand-added items. The second sentence names the sibling mutators (mark/edit/remove), so an agent can tell this is the read-side tool without inspecting other schemas.

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?

Implicitly establishes this as the read tool and explicitly routes mutation work to mark_shopping_list_items, edit_shopping_list_items, and remove_shopping_list_items by explaining what the returned IDs are for. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g., use search_recipes for discovery), but the context is clear.

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