deliveroo_restaurant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently enumerates the returned fields (name, address, currency, branch type, rating, review count, hero image, and order acceptance), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, auth requirements, or rate limits, and it assumes the uname is valid from search. Since it is a read operation, the transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then lists the return fields in a structured manner. While the enumeration is somewhat verbose, it is informative and avoids redundancy. It could be trimmed, but it is not bloated or rambling.

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-detail tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It covers the primary fields and clarifies that it applies to multiple partner types. Missing details like pagination, error handling, or rate limits are not critical for this tool's simple lookup nature. The existence of sibling tools for menus and fulfillment covers other needs, so the description is sufficiently complete for its intended use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the 'uname' parameter is the key input but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's description ('Restaurant slug, from a search response's uname field'). The 'market' parameter is not elaborated further in the description, but the schema already covers it, so no significant enhancement is provided.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a Deliveroo partner's detail, further specifying that it covers restaurant, grocery, and shopping types. This distinguishes it from siblings like deliveroo_restaurant_menu (which fetches menus) and deliveroo_search (which searches), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states the tool returns a partner's detail by uname, implying it is used after obtaining a uname from search results, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like deliveroo_restaurant_menu or deliveroo_fulfillment_times. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the decision partly to inference.

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