culvers_calendar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals important non-obvious behaviors: the schedule is published in roughly a two-month forward window, and the data is truly per-restaurant ('two restaurants on the same date routinely feature different soups'). This goes beyond a simple 'returns calendar' statement. It could mention response format or explicit read-only nature, but the description already conveys meaningful behavioral context.

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 four tight sentences, each earning its place: scope statement, return contents, behavioral limitations, and sibling comparison plus parameter source. It front-loads the core function and avoids any filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter signature and no output schema, the description covers the information an agent needs to invoke correctly: where the slug comes from, what the endpoint returns (including the two-month forward and per-restaurant variation), and the key alignment with culvers_store. A formal response schema would be nice, but for a basic schedule lookup the description is largely 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?

The input schema documents slug with 100% coverage: 'Restaurant slug from /culvers/directory.' The description repeats the same derivation source without adding new parameter-level semantics. Because schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the tool description does not quite exceed that.

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 Culver's restaurant's flavor-of-the-day and daily soup schedule.' It then explains exactly what the full schedule contains (flavor of the day plus soups per date) and explicitly contrasts with culvers_store, which only returns today/tomorrow. An agent can accurately distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening schemas.

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 provides direct when-to-use guidance: 'GET /culvers/store returns only today's and tomorrow's flavor; use this endpoint for the whole calendar.' It also tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter, stating 'slug comes from GET /culvers/directory.' This gives clear conditional routing and lexical prerequisites.

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