kroger_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so by stating the credential requirement, the official API source, and the banner store coverage. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but it covers the key auth prerequisite and precision claim.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a clear Args block for parameter details. The list of banners is useful but somewhat lengthy. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description focuses on inputs, auth, and comparison to the circular. It lacks explicit differentiation from price_check or search_deals, but the credential note and 'more precise than the circular' cover common alternatives. For a search/pricing tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query with example, location_id as store ID from kroger_find_stores with optionality based on an environment variable, and limit with default. This adds complete semantic 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 description clearly states 'Exact SKU-level prices (regular and promo) from a Kroger-banner store via Kroger's official API' and lists specific banners. It distinguishes itself from store_circular by claiming higher precision and from other tools through the credential requirement.

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 explicitly notes that 'Requires Kroger API credentials; without them the other tools still work,' signalling when to use this tool. It also says 'More precise than the circular,' providing a direct comparison to store_circular. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like price_check or search_deals.

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