guest

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Cancel a reservation', omitting side effects, irreversibility, confirmation requirements, failure conditions, or any policies. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no extraneous words. It is maximally concise while conveying the core purpose.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but fails to provide behavioral details or parameter semantics. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially compared to sibling tools that might have richer descriptions.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions the parameters implicitly via 'previously created with create_reservation', but does not describe their meaning, format, or constraints for domain and reservationId.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'reservation', and explicitly refers to 'previously created with create_reservation', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reservation and get_reservation_status.

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 implies usage for canceling an existing reservation from create_reservation, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (checking availability using published floor plan) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior if the floor plan is unavailable. The description adds basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second gives actionable follow-up guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys purpose and usage.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and usage (e.g., passing tableId to create_reservation). However, it does not describe the return format, explain the domain parameter, or provide enough detail for a complete understanding.

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 33% (only start has a description). The description adds meaning by referring to 'in a given time window' implying durationMinutes, but does not explain the domain parameter or specify the format for start beyond ISO 8601. It provides marginal additional value over 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 the tool checks which tables are free or busy in a given time window using the restaurant's floor plan, with specific verb (check/retrieve availability) and resource (tables). It distinguishes from siblings like create_reservation and get_reservation_status.

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 provides some guidance by mentioning to pass the chosen table id to create_reservation, implying pre-reservation usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_reservation_status or when not to use it, and lacks exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates and creates an order, warns about keeping orderId for status checks, and implies mutation. No contradictions or omissions regarding side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and return value, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main flow, type-specific requirements, and follow-up usage. Could mention enum values for orderType/paymentMethod but not essential.

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 0%, but the description adds critical meaning: it highlights required fields (customer.name/phone for pickup/delivery, delivery.address for delivery) and explains the return value (orderId). It does not cover all 10 parameters but compensates well for key ones.

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 the tool validates and places an order at a specific location (meni.ge), mentions return values (orderId and total), and distinguishes order types. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_order_status or cancel_reservation.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (placing an order) and specifies requirements per order type (e.g., customer.name/phone for pickup/delivery, delivery.address for delivery). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given no sibling is an order creation tool, it's sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the reservation starts as pending, returns a reservationId needed for status and cancellation, and optionally binds a table via tableId. It does not cover authentication, failure modes, or idempotency but provides sufficient detail for safe use.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured to lead from request to follow-up actions.

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 description covers the core flow (pending, reservationId, table binding) but omits explanations for many parameters (phone, codeId, comment, domain) and does not address default values or constraints in the schema, leaving gaps for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 only 22%, and the description adds meaning only for tableId (from check_table_availability). The remaining 8 parameters (phone, codeId, comment, domain, partySize, durationMinutes, etc.) lack any explanation in the description, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 the tool requests a table reservation, differentiates from siblings by mentioning pending status and linking to get_reservation_status and cancel_reservation, and explains the optional table binding from check_table_availability.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to request a reservation) and directs the agent to check status with get_reservation_status and cancel with cancel_reservation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

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

The description indicates a read operation by stating 'Get', and specifies the return includes variant groups and addons. With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavior, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words or structure issues.

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?

For a simple fetch operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does and what it includes, though it lacks parameter explanations. Given the tool's simplicity, it meets basic needs.

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 three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what domain, itemId, or language mean. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, and since coverage is minimal, it should compensate but does not.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'one menu item', and the scope 'with its variant groups and addons'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_menu (likely for listing) and order-related tools.

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 implies usage for fetching a single item but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Contextually, it's clear but lacks direct guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It enumerates the output components (categories, items, variants, etc.) and explains the domain parameter. This provides sufficient transparency for a read operation, though it lacks details on rate limits or response size.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence packs the purpose and output content. Second sentence provides critical parameter context. Every word earns its place.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects. It does not mention pagination or response format, but for a full menu retrieval, this is minor.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds practical guidance: 'domain = uppercase location code from the QR/menu URL' and specifies language default, which enhances the schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves the full menu including categories, items, prices, variants, addons, currency, and ordering capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_item (single item) and others.

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 provides context on when to use it ('Get the full menu of a meni.ge location') and explains the domain parameter's origin ('uppercase location code from the QR/menu URL'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only 'check the status' without disclosing read-only behavior, authentication needs, error conditions, or any potential side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It is not an example of efficient communication.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what status values to expect, how to interpret results, or handle errors, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. 'domain' and 'orderId' are listed in the schema without any clarification in the description.

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 the tool checks the status of an order created with create_order, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks detail on what 'status' encompasses, and could better differentiate from sibling tools like get_reservation_status.

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 implies usage after creating an order ('previously created with create_order') but offers no guidance on when not to use it, alternatives, or prerequisites. Sibling tools like cancel_reservation exist but are not mentioned.

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

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

The description implies a read operation but lacks details about behavior: what happens if the reservation does not exist, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should compensate but does not.

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 very brief (one short sentence), which is efficient but under-specified. It earns its place but could include more critical information without excessive length.

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 complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It fails to describe output structure, error cases, or relationships to other tools like create_reservation.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'domain' or 'reservationId'—their meaning, constraints, or format. The description relies entirely on the schema, which itself provides no context.

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 that the tool returns the status of a reservation (pending/confirmed/seated) and references the creation tool. However, it does not differentiate from other sibling tools like cancel_reservation or check_table_availability.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be used after creating a reservation but before canceling it.

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