Score a restaurant's public social-ordering readiness using Settro's deterministic 100-point rubric.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| has_facebook_page | Yes | ||
| has_instagram_business_account | Yes | ||
| publishes_promo_content_weekly | Yes | ||
| can_reply_to_messages_within_5_minutes | Yes | ||
| wants_direct_orders_without_marketplace_commission | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a 'deterministic 100-point rubric,' which implies the tool returns a numeric score and is deterministic, but it does not disclose side effects, data sources, or whether it performs external checks. This gives partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.
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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, but it omits necessary details that might be expected in a fuller description. Still, as a concise statement it is well-structured.
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 tool with six input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how the rubric works, what inputs are required, or any expected behavior, making it inadequate for confident invocation.
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 makes no mention of any parameters. The six parameters (e.g., pos_system, has_facebook_page) are entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 a specific verb ('Score') and identifies a clear resource ('a restaurant's public social-ordering readiness') with a defined methodology (Settro's deterministic 100-point rubric). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which focus on comparing options, estimating losses, or generating summaries.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist but no comparison or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the sales funnel: readiness rubric, recovery options, loss estimation, and overall fit summary. No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate their outputs.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (assess_, compare_, estimate_, generate_), with descriptive noun phrases. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a sales-focused server, covering the key evaluation steps without bloat. Each tool serves a specific, non-redundant function.
The set covers the main stages of qualifying a restaurant for Settro: readiness scoring, loss quantification, recovery comparison, and final fit summary. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for actual outreach or follow-up, but the core assessment lifecycle is complete.
