Compare Grocery Choices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations: 'Nothing is added' clarifies the practical meaning of read-only in this domain (no persistence/cart mutation), and 'Ask before external enrichment' discloses an interaction norm. Could go further on response behavior, but the workflow linkage plus the two normative statements justify a strong score.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: usage trigger, purpose + workflow, alternative routing, and behavioral norms. The decision-relevant information is front-loaded ('Preferred for ambiguous items') before procedural details. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the output schema covers return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and the tool has modest complexity (2 params, nested items array), the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, what it produces, what to do next, where to get nutrition details, and what behaviors are forbidden. The only minor gap is precise parameter definitions, which the thematic hints partially mitigate.

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 undocumented parameters. It partially does: 'missing quantity/quality questions' maps thematically to the quantity and quality fields, and 'small shortlists' hints at limit_per_item. However, it never defines what query means per item, how limit_per_item behaves, or the relationship between items and output, leaving the agent to infer param semantics.

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 and resource: 'Create small Lazada shortlists' with a defined content payload (unit prices, history, relevance notes, quantity/quality questions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its role in a workflow (input to render_product_picker) and by pointing to get_product for ingredient coverage, so an agent can tell it apart from search_products, get_product, and render_product_picker.

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?

States an explicit trigger condition: 'Preferred for ambiguous items, lists, and comparisons.' It names the correct next tool (render_product_picker), the alternative for nutrition data (get_product), and imposes an interaction constraint ('Ask before external enrichment'). The when-to-use and when-to-route-elsewhere guidance is fully explicit.

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