Resolve ingredients to Amazon products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cart/order boundary, which is a meaningful domain clarification given the cart siblings, but says nothing about return behavior, result count, or how 'candidates' are ranked.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the exclusion. No filler, though the second sentence could be folded in without loss.

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 tool with 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, and a non-trivial nested input, the description is too thin. It neither explains the parameters nor what a resolved 'candidate' contains, leaving significant gaps despite annotations covering the safety profile.

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 0% across a nested items array (ingredient, organic_only, quantity_hint, brand_preference) plus zip_code and prefer_whole_foods. The phrase 'ingredient requests' loosely gestures at items.ingredient, but nothing explains the boolean flags, quantity_hint, or zip_code, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (resolve) and resource (ingredient requests to Amazon product candidates). The second sentence distinguishes it from the cart/order siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from prepare_create_ingredient_cart. The term 'resolve' is a bit abstract but the resource and boundary are clear.

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 'does not create a cart or place an order' clause implies this is a discovery/lookup step preceding cart creation, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction or named alternative (e.g., prepare_create_ingredient_cart), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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