justeat_restaurant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it's a 'Get' operation (read-only) and lists the returned data, but doesn't disclose potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. It adds value by specifying the output fields, but lacks depth for a no-annotation case.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 simple detail-fetching tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It doesn't explain return format or error handling, but given the simplicity, it's sufficiently complete.

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% and the schema already describes unique_name as a restaurant slug from search. The description reiterates 'by unique_name' without adding new meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter context is provided.

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 fetches a single restaurant's detail and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, address, primary cuisine, rating, order acceptance). It distinguishes from siblings like justeat_search and justeat_restaurant_menu by scope.

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 implies the tool is for getting details, not menu or search, but doesn't explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. It mentions the unique_name parameter sourced from search, providing context for when it's relevant.

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