Summarize public Settro fit using POS compatibility, missed-call pain, social ordering interest, and direct-order channel needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| needs_text_ordering | Yes | ||
| missed_calls_problem | Yes | ||
| social_ordering_interest | Yes | ||
| wants_month_to_month_pricing | No | ||
| needs_instagram_or_facebook_ordering | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'summarizes' fit but does not mention side effects, output format, permissions, or whether the summary is persisted. The behavioral transparency is thin.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids fluff, but its brevity leaves out details needed for full usability.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, provide usage context, or cover all parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names high-level categories (POS compatibility, missed-call pain, social ordering interest, direct-order channel needs) but does not map them to specific parameters or explain enum values. It omits wants_month_to_month_pricing entirely.
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 a specific verb ('summarize') and a resource ('public Settro fit') with a list of input dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on synthesis rather than assessment or comparison, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., assess_social_ordering_readiness, compare_direct_order_recovery_options). It only implies a general use case with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.
