foodpanda_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the empty-list behavior for no coverage, the market default, and the fact that the returned 'code' is the value consumed by other endpoints. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the empty-list behavior and cross-endpoint linkage are meaningful behavioral details beyond a bare search description.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core action, then lists the useful output fields, then closes with the edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return fields, the cross-endpoint code linkage, and the no-coverage edge case. It could mention pagination or the default market more explicitly, but the schema already documents market and offset, so the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it 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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds context for cuisine_id (from a prior response's cuisines[].id) and clarifies that latitude/longitude define the search center, but it does not add meaning for limit, offset, or market beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search foodpanda restaurants near a location.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like foodpanda_restaurant, foodpanda_restaurant_menu, and foodpanda_restaurant_reviews by focusing on the search/list behavior and the delivery-market context. It also explains the key output field (code) that connects to the restaurant and menu endpoints, which is a strong differentiator.

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 is for searching restaurants by location and optionally filtering by cuisine id, and it notes that a location with no coverage returns an empty list rather than an error. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the restaurant/menu/reviews siblings.

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