sonic_nutrition_documents

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 output characteristics (PDF files, several megabytes each) and warns to check size_bytes before downloading, which is important behavioral guidance. It doesn't mention any side effects or permissions, but since it's a read-only listing tool, the warning about file size is the key behavioral trait.

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 reasonably concise at about 3 sentences, but it is information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds crucial caveats about data availability and file sizes. No wasted words, though it could be slightly shorter, but the detail is justifiable.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what documents are returned, the data fields per document, and the limitations (no per-item macros). This covers all the information an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from the response.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation needed. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and the format of the documents, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result structure without an output schema.

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 it lists Sonic Drive-In's official nutrition and allergen documents, specifying the exact documents included (printable menu, Spanish menu, nutrition guide, allergen info, ingredient statement) and the data returned (URL, file name, MIME type, size, last republished date). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sonic_menu by noting that GET /sonic/menu carries only calories and lacks per-item macros.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when needing official nutrition/allergen documents, and notes that per-item macro/micronutrient data is not available anywhere, guiding the agent to not expect such data. It also implicitly differentiates from sonic_menu by clarifying the limitation of that alternative.

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