wendys_restaurant

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 clearly states this is a read operation (returns detail), explains the data source (order.wendys.com restaurant-selector API vs Yext locator), and details what data is returned (fulfillment modes, feature flags, hours). It doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-by-id tool, the behavioral context is strong.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one Wendy's restaurant's detail by store id') before diving into implementation details and comparisons. It's longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds distinguishing information about the API source, the id format, and the richer data payload. The structure is logical: purpose → id source → API distinction → data richness.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the input id's origin, the underlying API, the distinction from the sibling tool, and the nature of the returned data (fulfillment modes, feature flags, hours). It doesn't specify the exact response format or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich contextual detail provided, the agent has enough to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter store_id is already described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the provenance of the id (from /wendys/nearby's stores[].store_id) and clarifying it's numeric, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Wendy's restaurant's detail by store id'), and the exact lookup mechanism (numeric store id via order.wendys.com's restaurant-selector API). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling GET /wendys/store, which uses a directory path, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling without opening schemas.

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 says when to use this tool (when you have a numeric store id from /wendys/nearby's stores[].store_id) and when not to (when you have a directory path, use GET /wendys/store instead). It also explains the data advantage over /wendys/nearby, giving clear selection criteria.

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