Optimalizovat nákupní seznam

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: default date scope, package-count rounding, low-confidence products going to unresolvedItems, partial status with null totalPrice and resolvedPrice, and the approximation/distance/stock limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then delivers compact behavioral rules: date default, quantity semantics, unresolved items, partial results, and limitations. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the most important behaviors and caveats clearly. It still leaves some optional parameters like optimization modes, allowedStores/excludedStores, and requireCompleteBasket to schema-only documentation, and it does not explicitly route between this tool and its 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?

Schema description coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the critical amount+unit semantics with a concrete example and package-count recalculation, and it steers away from deprecated quantity/preferredPackage. It does not cover optimization, requireCompleteBasket, or store-filter parameters, but those are at least present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: comparing leaflet offers for multiple items while respecting stores, memberships, and maxStores. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools search_products and get_product_offers, which are individual product/offer lookups.

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 gives clear context: it is for multi-item basket optimization, defaults to today's valid actions, and explains quantity input via amount+unit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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