grubhub_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a notable edge case: 'A location Grubhub does not serve returns an empty list rather than an error.' It also implies read-only behavior by being a search, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or mention any rate limits or side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficiently worded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second lists all returned fields in a compact but informative way, and the third covers the edge case. No filler or redundant phrases. The structure front-loads the core action and then provides necessary detail, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (all covered by schema) and no output schema, the description serves as the de facto return format by listing all fields. It also provides the crucial context that the id is used by other Grubhub endpoints, and that unsupported locations return an empty list rather than an error. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive and how to chain calls, with no critical information missing.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'search' parameter scope ('over restaurant names, cuisines and dishes') and implicitly linking 'order_method' to 'delivering to (or offering pickup at)'. This clarifies semantics that the schema does not fully convey, such as how the keyword is applied and what the delivery/pickup distinction affects. This extra context pushes it above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Search Grubhub restaurants near a location'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning that each restaurant carries its id, which is 'the value every other Grubhub endpoint takes', implying this is the entry point for finding restaurants. This makes it unambiguous which tool to use for discovery versus details.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools like grubhub_restaurant or grubhub_restaurant_menu as follow-ups. The mention that the id is used by other endpoints hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion. This is left to inference, which makes it less helpful for selection among similar food-delivery tools.

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