classify_food_business

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the return type ('JSON with structured assessment, regulation refs, and recommended actions') but does not clarify if the tool modifies any data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 concise at 5 lines, with a clear first-line purpose and organized sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence contributes value, though the Returns line could be more specific.

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 the tool's complexity (classification with two optional params) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the return format but omits details on classification criteria, error handling, or examples. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'query' as an optional parameter for 'regulation ref, identifier, or input data', and 'api_key' as for 'Pro+ tier features'. This provides useful context that the schema lacks.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Determine FSA registration tier (low/medium/high risk)'. The verb 'Determine' and resource 'FSA registration tier' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'allergen_labelling_check' or 'haccp_audit', leaving the agent to infer based on the distinct task.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'search_regulation' or 'traceability_one_up_one_down' are not referenced, and there is no discussion of prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool the best choice.

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