foodpanda_search_cuisines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are live with real restaurant counts, that cuisine ids are location- and market-scoped and not global, and that different coordinates/markets yield different id sets. This provides important behavioral context beyond what the schema reveals.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs essential usage guidance and behavioral caveats without unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (facet list with ids and counts) and how to use the results. It also provides a crucial caveat about location scoping, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, so the description adds value by explaining how latitude/longitude and market affect the results and that they must match the intended search context. It clarifies the dynamic nature of cuisine ids based on location, which is not in the schema descriptions.

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 the tool gets foodpanda's live cuisine filter catalog for a location, and explains it returns the facet list with real restaurant counts. It distinguishes itself by noting the ids are valid for /foodpanda/search's cuisine_id, which connects to its purpose for search. This is specific and differentiates from other foodpanda tools.

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 gives explicit guidance to call this with the same market/latitude/longitude as the intended search, warning against reusing ids from elsewhere. It implies this should be used before foodpanda_search to obtain cuisine_ids, though it doesn't explicitly name foodpanda_search as an alternative. That's a clear usage context.

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