deliveroo_fulfillment_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no auth, or explain behavior on empty results. It does add useful context about returning live scheduling data with UNIX timestamps, but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 the first sentence front-loading the primary action and the second expanding on the return payload without any wasted words. Every phrase adds value, such as clarifying both delivery and pickup, the ASAP option, and UNIX timestamps. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level picture of the return data (ASAP + days + time slots + timestamps), which helps agents understand what to expect. It could further specify the exact response structure or error behavior, but for a simple location-based query the provided context is largely sufficient. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by this descriptive overview.

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%, with each parameter already well-described (lat/long as search center, market with default uk). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond repeating that it applies to a location. This is the expected baseline when the schema already carries full parameter documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Deliveroo's live delivery and pickup scheduling windows'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like deliveroo_search and deliveroo_restaurant by focusing exclusively on scheduling windows rather than restaurant discovery or menus. The added detail about returning 'Choose a day'/'Choose a time' picker data confirms its unique role.

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 implies the tool should be used when scheduling windows for a Deliveroo location are needed, and identifies the input as a location (lat/long). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative Deliveroo tools or exclude scenarios like restaurant-specific queries. The guidance is implied rather than directly stated, so it's average.

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