willys_find_cheapest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the sorting mechanism, that ranking applies across the entire hit set, and highlights a concrete pitfall with category-less ranking. It does not disclose auth or output shape, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with the main function front-loaded and the category caveat in the second sentence. Every part is informative, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core ranking behavior, the category mechanism, and a critical edge case. It does not describe the full return shape or all parameter interactions, but the schema covers many parameters, making the description reasonably complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 64%, and the schema already provides rich descriptions for many parameters. The description adds meaningful context about categories and the ranking pitfall, but does not explain undocumented parameters like limit, query, or onlyBuyable. It adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 searches and ranks by comparative price (kr/kg, kr/l, kr/st), distinguishing it from general sibling search tools like willys_search. It also notes it returns available categories, further specifying its unique behavior.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that categories can narrow results and explicitly warns that without a category, minced meat sauce may rank as minced meat. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the specialized search-and-rank purpose implies when this tool is appropriate.

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