deliveroo_fulfillment_times

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool is a data retrieval operation via 'Get'/'Returns', emphasizes that the data is live, and describes the exact equivalence to the real site's picker. It does not explicitly discuss side effects or rate limits, but no mutation is implied.

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?

Two sentences with the key action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides valuable output specifics but includes some redundancy ('delivery and pickup' twice, 'for a location' twice), making it slightly less concise than a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately compensates by explaining what the response contains: an ASAP option, open scheduled days, time slots, and UNIX timestamps. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's relatively simple location-based query; edge cases like unsupported markets are not covered but are low-risk given the schema context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond noting the tool operates 'for a location', while latitude/longitude and market semantics are already fully covered in the input schema.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get Deliveroo's live delivery and pickup scheduling windows for a location' and specifies the exact output content: ASAP option, available scheduled-order days, time slots, and UNIX timestamps. This clearly names the verb, resource, and output scope, distinguishing it from menu/search/restaurant sibling 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve Deliveroo delivery/pickup scheduling data for a location, mirroring the site's order-ahead picker. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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