Popular Dishes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not what happens when dishes are unavailable, whether auth is required, nor the shape of the result beyond 'a list'. 'When available on the website' hints at a conditional failure mode but leaves it unexplained.

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 redundant padding. The vague trailing qualifier is the only element that does not fully earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return format and the 'not available' case, but it does neither. For a data-retrieval tool with a conditional result, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the single business_id parameter is already documented; the description adds no format, type, or source detail beyond restating the purpose. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (popular_dish list) scoped to a restaurant, so the core purpose is clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_menus_beta or reviews, whose resources overlap conceptually.

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 only usage cue is the vague qualifier 'when available on the website,' which does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_menus_beta or other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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