wendys_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It plainly indicates a read-style operation ('Get... returns...') and discloses an important edge case: a directory path returns 404 rather than a hollow record. It could state read-only/no-mutation explicitly, but for this simple retrieval tool the behavior is effectively transparent.

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 purposefully front-loaded and every clause serves a distinct function: what it returns, where the value comes from, and how invalid input fails. The field list is long but necessary in the absence of an output schema, so the length is justified rather than 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?

For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is effectively complete. It states the output contents, the accepted input source, and the failure mode. Nothing that an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is left unexplained.

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 already describes the path parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond that by identifying the exact source of valid paths (GET /wendys/directory entries with is_store true) and by explaining the error behavior for an invalid kind of path.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Wendy's store's detail'), and enumerates exactly what the returned record contains. It differentiates from sibling tools like wendys_directory and wendys_nearby by tying the input to directory entries with is_store true and by naming the store-specific fields.

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 gives a clear precondition that has value: path inputs should come from GET /wendys/directory entries whose is_store is true. It also warns that passing a directory path will return a 404. It does not explicitly contrast this with wendys_nearby or wendys_restaurant, but the source-of-path guidance is concrete enough to disambiguate typical usage.

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