zomato_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns curated editorial groupings, not raw search results, and that a city with no curated collections yields a 404. It also explains the significance of each collection's url field. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'List' and 'Returns' imply a non-mutating operation. The disclosed behaviors are sufficient for this simple tool.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: it states the purpose, gives examples, distinguishes from search, explains the url field, and notes the 404 behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent can expect. It explains the nature of the returned collections and the meaning of the url field. It also covers the edge case of cities without collections. It doesn't describe the exact response structure (e.g., fields like collection id, name), but for a simple list tool this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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 only parameter, city, is described in the schema as 'Zomato public city slug', which provides basic meaning. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, such as format examples or how to obtain a valid slug. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description doesn't add value beyond the schema, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Zomato's curated restaurant collections for a city', and distinguishes it from keyword/geo search by explicitly saying 'not a keyword/geo search'. It also provides concrete examples of collection types, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like zomato_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 implies when to use this tool: when you need editorial collections rather than a search. It explicitly states it's not a keyword/geo search, pointing away from search tools, and notes that collections exist only for larger cities and a 404 is returned otherwise. While it doesn't name specific alternatives like zomato_search, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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