burgerking_product

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains that options are only present when a customization tree exists, that options recurse recursively through upstream structures, and that plain items return an empty list. It also notes price deltas for ingredient toggles, giving an agent an accurate picture of the response shape.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: a one-sentence purpose, a detailed explanation of the customization tree behavior, and a concise edge-case note. Front-loaded with the primary action, with no filler.

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, so the description must stand alone in conveying the return shape. It does so thoroughly, covering the three item types (combo, picker, customizable) and the fallback for non-customizable items. Parameter provenance is left to the schema, which is already explicit.

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 parameters (market, item_id, store_id) are already well-documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is appropriate given the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Burger King item, combo, or picker's full detail and customization tree.' It clearly enumerates the returned fields (name, description, price, image, nutrition, allergens) and distinguishes this from list-style siblings like burgerking_menu by emphasizing 'one' menu entry.

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 scope is clear: it serves a single item's detail and customization tree, so an agent can infer when to call it versus the menu- or location-listing tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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