burgerking_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the output: per-channel open/closed status, current and next windows, local time, timezone, overall available flag, and the semantic meaning of absent windows (channel not offered). It also discloses that forecast=true adds two catering-only channels. This is exceptional transparency for a tool with no 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?

The description is detailed but not bloated; every sentence contributes essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the output structure and the forecast option. While longer than typical, the density of useful content justifies its length. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a thorough account of what the tool returns: per-channel status, windows, local time, timezone, available flag, and forecast details. It covers edge cases (no windows = channel not offered) and explains the forecast extension. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds value by clarifying that store_id comes from /burgerking/locations and that forecast includes two catering-only channels, which are not in the current-status list. This goes beyond the schema, enhancing understanding of parameter semantics.

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: retrieving real-time fulfillment status for a single Burger King restaurant. It explicitly distinguishes this from /burgerking/locations' published weekly schedule, making it easy to identify what this tool is for and how it differs from a close sibling. The verb 'get' and resource 'one restaurant's real-time fulfillment status' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implicitly provides usage guidance by contrasting with /burgerking/locations' published schedule, suggesting this tool is for live status. It also explains the forecast parameter extends the scope to multi-day schedules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative for different needs, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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