panera_catering_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a cafe-specific catering menu with detailed item attributes including a live in_stock flag, and highlights a pricing nuance (placeholder vs real cafe). It does not mention any destructive behavior or require auth, but it is transparent about what it returns and its live nature.

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 lengthy but information-dense, with each sentence contributing detail about the tool's scope, output richness, and unique aspects. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what the tool returns. It covers the categories list, item attributes (price, nutrition, allergens, in_stock), and the source of cafe ids. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a single-cafe menu the details are sufficient for an agent to call it 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 input schema already documents the cafe_id parameter with the description 'Panera cafe id, from /panera/locations'. The description repeats this source, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 gets one cafe's catering menu with prices, nutrition, and allergens, and distinguishes it from the retail menu. It specifies the resource (catering menu for a specific cafe) and contrasts with the retail structure, so an agent can tell it apart from panera_menu and panera_item_detail.

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 that catering is a separate application from retail, with its own category structure and pricing, and explicitly notes that categories are flat unlike the retail hierarchy. It also directs the agent to GET /panera/locations for cafe ids. It implies when to use this tool (for catering menus) but does not name alternative tools explicitly or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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