Foodly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds that the result includes region, plans and page scope, which is useful context, but does not describe the output shape or failure behavior for unrecognized countries.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool resolves and followed by the accepted input formats. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys both the input formats and the three things returned (region, plans, page), which is enough to invoke and interpret it. Only the exact response shape and error case are left unspecified.

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 carry the meaning of the single 'country' parameter, and it does: it accepts an ISO code (MX) or a name in English, Spanish or Portuguese (Mexico, México). Concrete examples make the accepted formats unambiguous, though it doesn't state case sensitivity or behavior for ambiguous names.

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 states a specific resource (Foodly region, plans, page) resolved from a country, so an agent knows this is a country-to-region lookup rather than a listing tool. It is distinguishable from get_foodly_plans and get_foodly_overview, though the verb is implicit ('which ... apply') rather than an explicit action verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests this is the entry point for resolving a country before consulting plans or pages, but it never says when to call this instead of get_foodly_plans or get_foodly_start. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description's help. The phrase 'the questions food businesses ask most' hints that the content is a curated subset rather than an exhaustive FAQ, which is mild added value, but nothing is said about freshness, whether the same call always returns the same set, or what form the answers take.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint appears immediately. It loses a point only because it is a noun phrase with no verb, which reads slightly less directly as an action statement than a 'Returns X for a region' phrasing would.

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 tool has one fully documented required enum parameter, a strong annotation set, and no output schema, so the remaining burden is to convey what kind of content comes back — which the description does by saying it is questions paired with answers. It stops short of saying whether the answer set is stable or region-complete, a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%: the region enum documents all three values, spells out the countries each covers, and even points to find_foodly_region for country mapping. The description only reinforces the one-region-per-call framing ('in one region'), adding nothing about region selection beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the most-asked questions food businesses have about Foodly) with an explicit scope ('in one region') and states that answers are included. It is not a tautology of the name and is distinguishable in substance from get_foodly_plans or get_foodly_start, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of cases better served by get_foodly_overview or get_foodly_plans, and no prerequisites stated. The only routing hint ('Use find_foodly_region to map a country') lives in the schema's region property, not in the description, so the description itself carries no usage advice.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds content-scope context (it covers the dashboard and per-region payment mechanics), which is useful, but it says nothing about output format, length, or depth — a modest addition over the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the main subject leads. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing ('What Foodly does...') reads more like a section heading than a complete directive.

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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description identifies the topics covered, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, it does not indicate depth, return structure, or how it relates to the four sibling tools, leaving a routing gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies.

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 lists topic areas (what Foodly does, the web dashboard, regional payments) but is a noun fragment with no verb, and the title 'What Foodly is' largely restates it. It does differentiate somewhat from siblings like get_foodly_plans or find_foodly_region by framing itself as a broad product overview, but the scope is vague rather than stated as a specific action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_foodly_start, get_foodly_plans, or get_foodly_faq. An agent must infer that this is the entry-point/overview tool from the name alone; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds modest value by indicating the return content is plans + prices + per-plan inclusions, but says nothing about currency, price freshness, or whether the list is fixed per region.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key scope constraint (one region, per-plan inclusions) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits any routing or output-shape context.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and is constrained by a well-documented enum. It is missing any guidance on alternatives and any note on what 'prices' means (currency, per-seat vs per-month), which matters for an agent interpreting the result.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is documented in detail with region definitions and a cross-tool hint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'one region' without adding format or selection meaning beyond that.

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 names a specific resource (Foodly's plans and prices) and scopes it to 'one region, with what each plan includes', which tells an agent this returns per-plan pricing plus inclusions. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like get_foodly_overview, which could plausibly also mention plans and prices.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint in the whole definition ('Use find_foodly_region to map a country') lives in the schema for the region parameter, not in the description, so the description itself does nothing to help an agent choose between this and the other four Foodly tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the content scope but says nothing about return format, whether the content is static documentation, or how it relates to the sibling informational tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the audience, the action and the three content areas with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter lookup tool.

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, no-argument, read-only informational tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent enough to know what content comes back. Only the relationship to the other get_foodly_* info tools is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the call as a fixed content lookup.

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 names a specific resource — onboarding information for a food business starting with Foodly — and enumerates its contents (app download links, web dashboard, subscribing). That distinguishes it from siblings like get_foodly_plans or get_foodly_faq, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The intent (a new business asking how to get started) is inferable from the content list, but the agent must reason about routing on its own.

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