chick_fil_a_faq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses pagination behavior, the search relevance-ranking, the default alphabetical ordering, and the inclusion of both plain text and HTML answers, as well as category resolution. This is thorough and goes beyond minimal disclosure.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the output structure and behaviors. No fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively: the fields of each entry, the category filter usage, pagination, and search behavior. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without further clarification.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining search behavior (relevance-ranked, default alphabetical) and that categories[].id values are ready-to-use for the category filter. This enriches the parameters without being redundant.

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: 'Browse Chick-fil-A customer FAQs' and elaborates on what it returns (a page of FAQ entries with question, answer, HTML, and categories). It is specific to Chick-fil-A FAQs and distinct from other sibling tools like menu or content tools.

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 conveys when to use this tool (for browsing or searching FAQs) and how to page through the corpus. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but there is no other FAQ tool for Chick-fil-A in the sibling list, so the context is clear enough.

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