Compare manual callback, marketplace redirect, and Settro direct-order recovery using public workflow criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| primary_channel | Yes | ||
| wants_direct_orders | No | ||
| needs_social_dm_ordering | No | ||
| avoids_marketplace_commission | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'using public workflow criteria' without disclosing what the comparison entails, return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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, grammatically correct sentence that is concise and hits the key purpose. However, it is under-specified, providing minimal information for a tool with five parameters.
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 no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is entirely inadequate as the sole documentation. It doesn't explain how inputs relate to comparison results or what output is produced.
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%, yet the description doesn't mention any of the five parameters (pos_system, primary_channel, wants_direct_orders, etc.) or explain their meaning. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource: manual callback, marketplace redirect, and Settro direct-order recovery. It distinguishes from siblings like assess_social_ordering_readiness by focusing on comparison of recovery options.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings; it doesn't mention appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence lacks any 'when-to-use' information.
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.
