shopping_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'read-only' tail of the description merely restates structured data. The description does add that quantities are scaled and results consolidated across recipes, but says nothing about network lookups, failure modes for unresolvable recipes, or the shape of the returned list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. The English fragment is a partial restatement of the German and the 'read-only' clause duplicates annotations, which is mild waste but not enough to obscure the intent.

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 two-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: multiple recipes in, one consolidated list with scaled quantities out. Only return structure and error handling are left implicit, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in detail, including that recipes accept IDs, numbers, URLs or search terms. The description only echoes the portions scaling behavior via 'skalierten Mengen', adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond 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 German sentence names a specific verb (erstellt/zusammenfassen) and resource (Einkaufsliste) and clarifies the input scope: multiple Chefkoch recipes with scaled quantities. The plural 'mehreren Rezepten' implicitly separates it from the single-recipe sibling get_recipe, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: aggregate several recipes into one list. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_recipes or get_recipe, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens with invalid or unfound recipes.

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