get_shopping_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does deliver: it discloses the authentication requirement, enumerates the return fields (list reference, title, type, item count, categories, memos/items), and even decodes the 'MTB' type meaning (in-store memo list). It's missing some context like not-found or authorization-error behavior, which would push it higher, but for a simple read tool this is above adequate.

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 efficient sentences with the primary verb and object front-loaded. The first sentence covers action, scope, and return fields; the parenthetical covers the authentication prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, and the inline 'MTB for in-store memo list' example is genuinely useful rather than padding.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is appropriately complete: it covers return structure, scoping, and the per-parameter semantics are already in the schema. Gaps like empty-list behavior or permission errors would be nice, but the description provides enough for an agent to correctly select and consume this tool among 70+ siblings.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%—the list_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID with its own description. The description adds marginal reinforcement ('specific' list, 'unique list ID') but no new semantic or format details beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, and this description neither helps nor hurts the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieves the details of a specific shopping list... identified by its unique list ID.' The phrase 'specific... unique list ID' implies a distinction from the plural sibling get_shopping_lists, and it's easily told apart from create_shopping_list. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts against these siblings, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage context: use when you need detail for one specific list (you have a list_id) and notes the prerequisite that an authenticated Carrefour session is required. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like get_shopping_lists for retrieving all lists. The guidance is serviceable but implied rather than stated.

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