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 significant behavioral context: openNow is computed in the venue timezone, it returns links to legal documents, and it lists the non-menu facts. The read-only nature is implicit, and while it does not mention auth or failure modes, the detail about timezone computation and return content goes beyond a simple statement.

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 dense sentence followed by a usage sentence. It is front-loaded with the main idea and lists details efficiently, but the enumeration is slightly long and could be shortened without losing meaning. Every part adds value, so it remains highly concise.

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 an output schema, the description does a good job of listing what the tool returns (all categories of facts). It also covers usage context. The main gap is the unexplained 'domain' parameter, which prevents full completeness for an agent needing to invoke the tool 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 coverage is only 50% (language has a description, domain does not). The description does not explain the 'domain' parameter, which is required and opaque. It neither defines what 'domain' means nor relates it to the store context. The language parameter is partially covered by the schema, but the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 defines the tool's purpose: retrieving non-menu facts about a location, enumerating the specific categories (address, contacts, hours, delivery terms, payments, legal docs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_menu, create_order, and search_policies_and_faqs.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with concrete examples ('Use this before answering "are you open?", "do you deliver?", "how much is delivery?"'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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