shopping_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure, and it adds useful context beyond the schema: zip_code is optional if GROCERY_ZIP is set, max_stores defaults to 2, and items are demonstrated with a concrete example. It does not describe failure modes or network dependencies, but it clearly describes the core behavior for a non-destructive planning tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by a compact Args block. No filler or redundant information; every sentence provides value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, required/optional inputs, defaults, and an example. There is no significant missing context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter is explained: items with an example, zip_code with format and optionality, and max_stores with its meaning and default. This adds meaning well beyond the raw 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 starts with a specific verb phrase 'Turn a shopping list into a trip plan' and clearly identifies the resource and output: which store to buy each item at. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_stores or price_check, which focus on individual store data or pricing rather than multi-store planning.

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?

The description makes the intended context explicit: you use this when you have a shopping list and need to know where to buy each item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'trip plan' framing and parameter examples provide clear usage context.

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