culvers_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return content (size/topping modifier tree with calories and nutrition link) which is useful, but it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if the item is not found. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter sourcing guidance is placed at the end. It's concise and structured effectively.

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 lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and where to get the slugs. However, it doesn't mention error cases, pagination (unlikely for a single item), or any authentication requirements. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the slugs come from specific endpoints, which helps the agent know how to populate them, but it doesn't add format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 looks up one Culver's menu item's full detail, with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('one Culver's menu item's full detail'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like culvers_menu and culvers_categories by focusing on a single item's detail, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 explains that category and item slugs come from GET /culvers/categories and GET /culvers/menu, which tells the agent where to obtain the required parameters. It implies the tool is for retrieving a single item's detail rather than browsing the menu, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like culvers_menu.

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