get_shopping_lists

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only behavior (retrieves) and mentions authentication requirement, which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is non-destructive or detail any side effects, but the read-only nature is clear enough for a basic 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently mentions the endpoint's scope and includes a brief note on authentication requirements. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, authentication requirement, and types of information returned. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format specifics, or any pagination if lists are numerous, which could be important for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the returned data (list ID, title, type, item count, slug, last updated date, EANs), which is valuable beyond the schema since no parameters exist. This enhances understanding of the tool's output.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all shopping lists for the authenticated user on Carrefour France, specifying the resource (shopping lists) and scope (all). It distinguishes from 'get_shopping_list' (singular) by implying it returns all lists, but does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing all shopping lists, but does not mention when to use 'get_shopping_list' (single list) or note prerequisites like session requirements beyond 'authenticated Carrefour session'.

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