culvers_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosure. It declares the operation as read-only ('Browse'), describes a paginated response, and surfaces the relationship to culvers_store by noting slugs. It does not mention edge behaviors like rate limits or pagination order, but the core read-only nature and page-based return are transparent.

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 two tight sentences that lead with the primary purpose and finish with the relationship to the store tool. There is a minor redundant overlap between 'restaurant-URL index' and 'restaurant-URL sitemap', but overall it is compact and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple paginated listing tool, the description is functional, but without an output schema it does not state what fields each entry contains (e.g., slug, URL, name). It mentions the slug relationship, yet an agent may need to know exact entry structure to chain the output into culvers_store. A short note on entry fields would make it 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the description need not supplement. The phrase 'one page' matches the existing `page` parameter and adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents both optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('Culver's restaurant-URL index / sitemap') and clearly scopes the tool as a paginated listing of restaurant URLs. The note that each entry's slug feeds GET /store:•:, distinguishes it from culvers_store, which fetches a single store's details.

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: if you need the slug of a Culver's restaurant to give to GET /store: , you first use this tool. It gives clear operating context (returns a page, paginated) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, lacking direct exclusions.

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