sonic_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it details what the returned windows contain, how the fulfillment parameter relates to the finer service_type vocabulary, and the exact behavior for closed/fully-booked stores (empty channel array, total_slots 0) and unknown store_ids (404). This is a very high level of disclosure.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence contributes unique information: the core action, the return fields, the fulfillment/service_type distinction, and error conditions. It is front-loaded with the primary task and then systematically covers details without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must define the return shape and edge conditions. It does: window start/end times, timezone, slot duration, lead time, service_types, and the closed/404 behaviors. This is enough for a caller to invoke the tool confidently and interpret responses 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 covers both parameters fully, but the description adds considerable meaning: it clarifies that fulfillment selects the request method, contrasts it with the distinct service_type vocabulary (listing all valid values), and ties store_id to a Sonic store number from /sonic/nearby. This goes well beyond the schema's 100% coverage 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List a Sonic Drive-In restaurant's order-ahead time slots,' and it specifies the scope by stating the windows are grouped by channel and date. This clearly distinguishes it from other Sonic tools like sonic_menu or sonic_store, which cover different resources.

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 clearly establishes the context: it is the tool for checking order-ahead availability for one Sonic store. It gives clear context and even handles edge cases like empty windows and 404, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it. Still, the scope is self-evident enough for an agent to infer usage.

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