haccp_audit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or modifies data. It only mentions the return format, omitting important aspects like authentication requirements or side effects.

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 relatively concise, stating the purpose upfront and listing parameters in a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the 'Returns' line adds minimal value given an existing output schema.

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 complexity of an HACCP audit tool, the description is minimal. It mentions the return includes 'structured assessment, regulation refs, and recommended actions', but lacks details on how the query influences output or fallback behavior when no query is provided.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'query' as a regulation reference or input data, and 'api_key' as an optional key for Pro+ features. This provides basic context beyond the schema defaults, though more detail on input format would improve.

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 'HACCP 7 principles + 12 steps compliance check', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'allergen_labelling_check' and 'classify_food_business' by focusing on HACCP compliance.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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