Show Grocery Choices

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavior beyond that: it renders UI in MCP Apps clients, and notes that plain JSON/image URLs remain available for fallback. This is useful context without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences, all informative: purpose comes first, usage guidance second, fallback last. No filler or repetition of structured data.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description covers the important contextual pieces: expected input origin, UI capability, and fallback. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It does not fully spell out the parameter format, but it indicates the ID must be a 'saved shortlist' and implies provenance via 'Call after shortlist_products'. For a single self-explanatory UUID parameter, this is enough added meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Display'), a specific resource ('a saved shortlist'), and the concrete output form (comparison table then labelled product-photo cards). It also explicitly orients the tool relative to shortlist_products, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives a clear sequencing rule ('Call after shortlist_products for comparisons'), an explicit exclusion ('do not provide only a text table when UI is supported'), and identifies the fallback path (plain JSON and product image URLs). This tells the agent when to use it and when to choose an alternative.

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