panera_cafe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 404 error behavior for unknown cafe ids, which is helpful. It also describes the return structure in detail, including per-channel fields and weekly hours, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple data-fetch operation, this is acceptable.

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 detailed yet efficient. It front-loads the purpose, then lists the return content in a structured way (address, phone, coordinates, amenity flags, per-channel availability with fields, and storefront hours). The final sentence about cafe id source and 404 is concise. Every sentence contributes value with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple fulfillment channels, flags, hours) and the lack of an output schema, the description does an excellent job of covering what the agent needs to know. It specifies the return fields, the per-channel details, the weekly hours with dates, and the error case. It's complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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% since the single parameter cafe_id has a description ('Panera cafe id, from /panera/locations'). The tool description adds the 404 behavior and restates the source, which is slightly redundant but not harmful. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the verb (get), resource (one Panera Bread cafe), and scope (detail and hours). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like panera_locations by specifying it returns details for a single cafe, not a list. The list of returned fields (address, phone, coordinates, amenity flags, per-channel availability, hours) is specific and 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use this tool by stating that cafe ids come from GET /panera/locations, implying a prerequisite step. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear: use this when you need a specific cafe's details. It could be more explicit about not using this for listing or searching, but the context from sibling tools (panera_locations) is sufficient.

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