fiveguys_nutrition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully explains what the endpoint returns (direct PDF URL, best-effort size, last-modified metadata), what it does not return (parsed table), and why the link is dynamic (guide's file path changes on republish). This is comprehensive and honest about the tool's behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: it states the main function, explains why the URL is dynamic, describes the return payload, and explicitly mentions the alternative for structured data. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, why the result is not static, and how to get structured data if needed. It fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result, leaving no gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the return value and the dynamic nature of the URL, which goes beyond the empty schema. Since there are no params to document, this is appropriately handled.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current Five Guys nutrition & allergen PDF guide's location'), and further distinguishes it from structured menu endpoints by clarifying it returns a link and metadata, not parsed tables. It also implies the distinction from sibling tools like fiveguys_menu, making the 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'pair it with GET /fiveguys/menu for structured per-item calories' and notes the guide's URL changes monthly, so always discover the current link rather than relying on a fixed one. This provides clear context and a direct alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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