wendys_time_slots

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the endpoint is credential-free and works with a cold request, which is useful. However, it does not describe potential rate limits, pagination (if any), or what happens when no slots are available (e.g., empty response vs error). It also doesn't mention if the store_id must be valid and what error occurs for invalid input. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively long but every sentence serves a purpose: it states the core action, distinguishes from other endpoints, and provides provenance and authentication context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The length is justified by the need to differentiate and establish trust, but it could be slightly tighter by moving the provenance to a secondary note.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the difference from open/close hours, confirms no auth is required, and gives context for the parameter. The main gap is the lack of detail on output format or error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is 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 schema has 100% coverage, with the parameter description explaining that store_id is a numeric id and providing examples from /wendys/nearby and /wendys/restaurant. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 available mobile-order time slots'), and clarifies the scope (single restaurant, arrival time slots distinct from open/close hours). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the endpoints for general hours. This is clear and specific, with no tautology.

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 this is for mobile-order arrival time slots, not general open/close hours, and contrasts it with GET /wendys/restaurant and /wendys/store. It also provides context on how the endpoint was discovered and that it requires no authentication, which guides when to use it (e.g., when needing scheduling slots without credentials). This is strong guidance, including an alternative.

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