dunkin_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that an unknown id returns a 404 and spells out the full contents of the response, including closed status, amenities, payment methods, delivery services, and URLs. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect profile or any rate-limit/auth requirements; the error behavior is the main disclosed trait.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured return-field inventory and path-source guidance. It is long, but the length is justified because there is no output schema, so enumerating the response contents helps the agent understand what it will get. A minor redundancy with the schema's path description keeps it from 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?

For a single-parameter store-detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it defines the input source, lists the full response payload, and states the error case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the path parameter. The description's second sentence essentially paraphrases the schema's property description without adding new semantic detail or format expectations. This is the baseline score for a fully covered single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Dunkin store's detail.' It then enumerates the exact fields returned, which distinguishes it from plural/list tools like dunkin_directory and dunkin_nearby. The path-source references make it clear this is a single-store lookup, not a search or menu tool.

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 tells the agent exactly where valid path values come from: a /dunkin/directory child with is_store true, a /dunkin/nearby result's path, or the trailing digits of a Dunkin URL. This gives clear routing context for how to obtain an id, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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