foodpanda_restaurant

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does this well by disclosing the non-filtering behavior of coordinate parameters and the fact that those coordinates only affect upstream computed fields. It also clarifies the operation is a read-style 'Get' returning a fixed set of fields, though it does not cover edge cases like not-found behavior or response format.

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 compact and information-dense, front-loading the operation and then listing return fields. It loses one point because the first sentence ('Get one foodpanda restaurant's detail') is nearly redundant with the start of the second sentence, adding slight repetition without new information.

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-resource detail endpoint, the description is largely complete: it lists the returned fields, clarifies coordinate semantics, and the schema covers the market default and code provenance. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but there is no output schema and the operation is simple enough that these are acceptable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that latitude and longitude do not filter or reject the lookup and only influence optional computed fields. The 'by code' phrasing clarifies the code parameter's role as the lookup key.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one foodpanda restaurant's detail') and enumerates the exact return fields, so an agent knows this is the single-restaurant detail lookup rather than a menu, reviews, or search tool. This differentiates it from siblings like foodpanda_restaurant_menu, foodpanda_restaurant_reviews, and foodpanda_search without needing to open their schemas.

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 makes it clear this is a detail-by-code lookup and gives an important usage caveat about latitude/longitude not filtering or rejecting the lookup. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as the menu, reviews, or search siblings, or instructs the agent to obtain the code from foodpanda_search first (that provenance appears only in the schema).

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