fiveguys_faq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses paginated output ('one page'), corpus size, language behavior, and the language-dependency of category ids. It does not mention error/empty responses or exact output fields, but no read-only list tool requires that level for safe invocation.

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 purpose and packs only useful context, but it is a single dense run-on sentence plus a follow-up instruction; splitting the corpus detail from the endpoint dependency would slightly improve readability. Still, every phrase 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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only list with 5 optional parameters and no output schema: it covers purpose, scope, filters, language, pagination, and category source. It does not describe the shape of each FAQ entry, but the name and context make that acceptable.

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 adds meaning on top by explaining that free text filters FAQ content, category ids are language-specific, and valid category values must be sourced from /fiveguys/faq-categories using the same lang. This cross-parameter relationship is not derivable from the schema alone.

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-resource pair ('List Five Guys' published customer FAQ') and immediately scopes the corpus (142 entries, 17 categories, filters, languages). It clearly differentiates from siblings like fiveguys_menu, fiveguys_store, and fiveguys_directory by naming the content type and pointing to the companion faq-categories endpoint.

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?

It gives clear operating context: list FAQ entries, filter by category or free text, switch language via lang, and retrieve valid category values from /fiveguys/faq-categories with the same lang. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for different needs, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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