justeat_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that the result is the site's own full listing, not a curated subset, that ordering follows Just Eat's default best-match sort unless overridden, and that an uncovered postcode returns an empty list rather than an error.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers scope, ordering, returned fields, and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by specifying the returned fields, the uniqueness of unique_name for downstream endpoints, behavior for empty results, and the effect of sort_by. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces sort_by behavior and mentions filter pass-through, but adds little meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Just Eat restaurants near a UK postcode' and returns the full restaurant listing. It further distinguishes itself from a curated subset and connects each result's unique_name to the restaurant and menu endpoints, making the tool's role clear against sibling tools like justeat_restaurant.

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 clear context: use it to retrieve the complete Just Eat listing for a UK postcode, with results ordered by best-match or sort_by. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the unique_name link to restaurant/menu endpoints implies the appropriate downstream usage.

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