culvers_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates what the tool returns (address, phone, coordinates, open/closed status, etc.), which is transparent about the output. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but it's a read-only lookup and the return content is well specified.

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 fluff. The core action and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the prerequisite is clearly stated in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists all returned fields, which gives the agent a good sense of what to expect. It doesn't mention potential failure modes or the exact format of the response, but these are not critical for a simple lookup. Minor gaps keep it from a 5.

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 schema already fully documents the slug parameter with 'Restaurant slug from /culvers/directory'. The description repeats this ('slug comes from GET /culvers/directory') without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.

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 restaurant by its directory slug, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like culvers_directory (which lists all) by specifying the lookup by slug and enumerating the returned data fields (address, phone, etc.).

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 clear context: you need a slug obtained from GET /culvers/directory. This implies the tool is for retrieving details of a known restaurant rather than searching or listing. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the prerequisite is clear and guides usage.

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