grubhub_availability

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 thoroughly explains what the response reports, including per-channel open state, delivery/pickup availability, delivery feasibility to the coordinate, blackout/overloaded flags, time estimates, fees, next-send times, and that requested IDs are echoed to identify missing restaurants. This is rich, useful transparency.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clearly states purpose. The remaining text is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema, so the return fields must be documented in prose. It is one continuous block rather than structured, but it stays relevant and skips filler.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating every important returned field and behavior, including handling of IDs Grubhub does not return results. It tells the agent not only what to expect but also how to interpret missing entries. For a batch availability tool, this is complete enough to invoke successfully.

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 parameters are already documented well. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: the limit of 20 restaurant IDs and that latitude and longitude define the diner location relative to which availability is computed. This goes beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: checks ordering availability for a batch of Grubhub restaurants. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like grubhub_restaurant or grubhub_search by emphasizing batch mode and up to 20 restaurants, which makes the tool's 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?

It clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need current availability for multiple Grubhub restaurants relative to a diner location, up to 20 in one call. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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