Shopping basket

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: each name resolves to its top search match unless an exact id is passed, and the call 'costs up to 2 requests per item'. It does not say what happens when no single shop carries every item, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the whole purpose and the two result shapes, then a short second block explains resolution and cost. It is tight overall, with only minor density issues from the inline backtick references.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining both returned structures and the per-item resolution field. Given five parameters and an open-world search backend, it is nearly complete; the missing piece is behavior when the list cannot be fulfilled by one shop or by any shop.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics for `items` (fuzzy name resolution vs exact ids, and that resolution is surfaced in `items[].name`), but says nothing about `min_score`, the one parameter left blank in the schema, nor adds detail to `city`/`condition`/`installment_only`.

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 concrete verb and resource — it computes the cheapest basket for a whole shopping list — and names the two outputs (`single_shop`, `split_cart`). It is distinguishable from single-item siblings like tb_cheapest or tb_compare by the multi-item scope, though it never names an alternative tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Use context is implied: this is for buying a multi-item list and weighing one delivery against the cheapest per-item split. There is no explicit when-to-use versus tb_cheapest/tb_compare/tb_best_value guidance and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the fit from the scope alone.

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