Find the best product per ingredient

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it keeps only products whose name contains every query word, ranks them, recognizes organic status from name keywords (Bio, Bioland, Demeter, Naturland), and returns best plus a few alternatives without mutating the cart.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then preference semantics, then the cart workflow, so an agent can stop reading early. The preference block is a dense run-on that could be bulleted, but no sentence is filler.

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 output schema, the description still explains the return shape (best and a few alternatives per item, packs to buy, total cost, leftover) and the follow-up call. The only omission is the items maxItems=20 cap and minItems=1, which the schema enforces anyway.

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 reported as 0% for the enum fields, so the description must carry the load, and it does: every preference value is defined ('cheapest' accounts for amount needed, 'best_value' is price per kg/litre, 'organic' is Bio-only cheapest first, etc.), amount syntax is illustrated, exclude is explained with examples, and per-item preference override of the global preference is stated.

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: finds the best Picnic product for each ingredient of a recipe or shopping list, with a named ranking goal. It is clearly distinct from the sibling search_products, which does not do per-ingredient ranking or cost/leftover math.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (recipe or shopping-list ingredients) and an explicit workflow: it does not touch the cart, so confirm choices and then call add_to_cart with packs as count. It never explicitly contrasts with search_products for single-item lookups, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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