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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: order cutoff values, the pickup place name, two distinct kitchen modes (scheduled slots vs. weekly pickup with dishes), and the privacy constraint that street addresses are never returned.

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, each doing distinct work: return content, mode-dependent shape, and a data-privacy boundary. The most important information (what is returned and that slots are orderable) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still sketches the payload (cutoff, place name, dishes per slot), which is helpful. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the relationship to sibling tools in the ordering workflow is unstated.

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 100% and the single kitchen parameter is well documented with slug and storefront-link examples. The description only refers to 'a kitchen's' times and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns a kitchen's upcoming pickup and delivery slots that are open for ordering, along with cutoff times and pickup place names. This clearly differs from get_menu and build_order_link, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: the caller supplies a kitchen slug and receives orderable slots. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_menu or build_order_link, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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