lemonade_buy_supply_basket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses partial success behavior ('later lines may still succeed after an earlier rejection') and response semantics ('Each line reports how many packs were applied'). This goes beyond a trivial statement but still omits details like inventory deduction or why a rejection might occur, yet the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides critical behavioral nuance about partial success. Every word earns its place.

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 description is relatively complete for a batched purchase tool: it explains the line-based operation and partial failure semantics, which are important for an agent. However, it does not specify the exact output format or the meaning of 'visible', and with no output schema, those details could be clarified. Still, it covers the core complexity of a multi-purchase tool well.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for the top-level 'purchases' parameter, but nested fields like 'pack' have descriptions (1=small, etc.). The description adds the concept of each array element being a 'line' and clarifies that 'how many packs were applied' indicates possible partial application. It partially compensates for the low top-level coverage but does not fully explain the item/pack/packs structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function with a specific verb ('Buy'), the resource ('several visible supply packages'), and the manner ('in one ordered basket'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lemonade_buy_supplies by emphasizing 'several' and 'ordered basket', making the batched nature explicit.

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 use for multiple purchases via 'several', but does not explicitly state when to use this over lemonade_buy_supplies or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'for a single package, use buy_supplies'), so the guidance is only inferred rather than explicit.

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