wolt_restaurant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-like 'Get' of 'public detail', implying no side effects. It adds a useful cross-referential behavior: the returned category ids are accepted values for /wolt/search's category parameter. This is helpful beyond the schema.

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 mostly concise, but it starts with 'Get one Wolt restaurant or store's detail' and then restates it as 'Returns... one Wolt restaurant or store's public detail.' This duplication could be merged into one sentence. The field list is long but necessary.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of return fields and even mentions how category ids can be used with /wolt/search. It doesn't describe error cases, but for this simple tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the slug parameter is already well documented in the input schema. The main description reiterates that the slug comes from /wolt/search, but it doesn't add meaning beyond that, baseline applies.

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 the action ('Get one Wolt restaurant or store's detail') and the resource ('by its slug'). It also lists the return fields, making it easily differentiable from sibling tools like wolt_restaurant_menu or wolt_search.

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 explains that the slug comes from /wolt/search, giving a clear entry point and context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternative tools like wolt_restaurant_menu or wolt_restaurant_availability, but the focus on general public detail makes the usage context reasonably clear.

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