get_shopping_list_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active Cookidoo connection (sibling connect_to_cookidoo suggests auth/state matters), what happens if the shopping list is empty, or how owned vs non-owned ingredients are handled in output. The description stays purely high-level and provides no behavioral nuance.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words. Slightly minimal but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, so much of the burden is lifted. However, with no annotations and no mention of connection prerequisites or potential failure states (shopping list not synced, no items, etc.), there's a moderate gap. Given the simple interface and rich schema, a 3 is reasonable but it could be higher with a note about connection requirements.

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 100%, so the three parameters (recipe_id, include_owned, include_additional_items) are all well-documented in the schema itself. The baseline 3 applies. The description phrase 'grouped by recipe' adds meaningful context about how output is organized, slightly justifying a 4.

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 says 'Get Cookidoo shopping-list ingredients grouped by recipe' — a specific verb (Get), resource (shopping-list ingredients), and grouping behavior (by recipe). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with meal plans, recipes, or custom recipes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any similar-looking list tool among the siblings, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a connection established via connect_to_cookidoo), no exclusions, and no note about when this is appropriate versus get_recipe_details or other listing tools. The recipe_id param description implies an optional filter, but no scenario guidance is given.

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