shoppingList

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the rule that ingredients merge only when they resolve to the same food, and that on-hand quantities are subtracted. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict behavior.

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 no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action ('aggregate', 'grouped', 'subtracted') and states the key merging rule efficiently. Perfectly sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description captures the essential behavior—aggregation, grouping, subtraction, and merging rules. However, it does not guide the agent on input structure or prerequisites, leaving some gaps given the tool's complexity. Still, the key semantics are present and the annotations fill in safety details.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention 'onHand' or 'recipes' at all, nor their structure or purpose. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is complex and nested, making this a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it aggregates raw quantities across recipes, groups by USDA food category, and subtracts on-hand amounts. It uses a specific verb ('aggregate') and resource, and the merging rule distinguishes it from sibling tools like computeBatchMacros or parseRecipe, making its role unambiguous.

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 usage when a consolidated shopping list is needed from recipes and on-hand items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is not misleading, but the guidance is implicit and relies on the agent inferring the context.

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