wolt_restaurant_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose important behavioral traits: output depends on whether coordinates are provided, and the fallback behavior, generic status with delivery_method_default UNAVAILABLE, is revealed rather than silently implied. It stops short of disclosing error conditions or rate-limit behavior, but the main input-dependent behavior is transparently described.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second sentence introduces the coordinate-dependent behavior. It is a dense block of prose rather than highly scannable, but every clause carries distinct information and nothing is wasted. It could be split into shorter sentences, but it remains appropriately informative.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both invocation and expected results on its own. It covers the complete return content, the key parameter semantics, and the conditional behavior of coordinates. For a 3-parameter tool with one required field, this description is remarkably complete and an agent can call it correctly without further guidance.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the practical consequence of supplying or omitting coordinates: it changes availability, fee, estimate, and distance, and drives delivery_method_default. This is beyond a plain restatement of the schema and helps the agent reason about the optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get one Wolt restaurant or store's live availability and delivery estimate." It enumerates the exact returned fields (open status, times, estimates, fee, minimum, distance, campaign labels), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like wolt_restaurant or wolt_restaurant_menu. An agent can identify exactly what this tool produces 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?

It gives clear guidance on when to provide coordinates: they are optional but deeply change the result, and the note about delivery_method_default being UNAVAILABLE without coordinates tells the agent exactly when passing latitude/longitude is essential. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the conditional usage and behavior are stated clearly enough for an agent to decide the correct invocation.

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