kfc_store

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 adds meaningful detail about the open hours representation, specifically that channels not offered by the restaurant are omitted rather than shown as always-closed, which is a non-obvious behavior. It does not describe all possible return fields, but for a single-resource fetch it is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional detail about hours behavior is presented efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the input source, the output includes store details and open hours per channel, and it clarifies an edge case about omitted channels. While it doesn't enumerate all possible fields, it covers the essential information an agent needs to 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?

The schema already covers the parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the store number should come from /kfc/stores or /kfc/nearby, which gives the agent context on how to obtain a valid value. This extra guidance justifies a score 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 the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'one KFC restaurant' identified by its exact store number. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kfc_stores (which likely lists stores) and kfc_nearby (which finds stores by location) by specifying it returns a single store's detail, and it mentions the inclusion of open hours per order channel.

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 used when you already have a specific store number, and it notes that the store number comes from /kfc/stores or /kfc/nearby, which guides the agent on the proper precursor steps. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for a simple lookup.

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