grocery_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'plus the staples basket', a content detail, and says nothing about currency, cost basis, or what drives the ranges, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words and the core content is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, leaving the agent to guess the tool's action.

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 is simple, the one parameter is fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is contextual framing — no linkage to the cost-of-living estimator family or statement of what assumptions (currency, location) the ranges rest on.

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 100% and the single parameter's allowed values (single, couple, family_of_four) are documented in the schema itself. The description does not mention household_size at all, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 phrase names the resource (monthly/weekly grocery ranges and a staples basket) but is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent infers 'estimate grocery costs' rather than reading it stated. It is distinguishable from siblings like rent_estimate or dewa_bill_estimate only by the noun 'grocery'.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cost_of_living_overview, or of how it fits with the other cost estimators in the sibling set. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context are given.

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