Kitchen Flow Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the aggregation behavior and return fields (openTickets, oldest wait time, isBottleneck), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 front-loaded with the key English statement, followed by details and usage guidance. The Spanish repetition adds some verbosity but may serve bilingual contexts. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the overall length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 that the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return fields and purpose. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to use it as a first diagnostic step. While no edge cases or errors are mentioned, the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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 has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what's already provided, and the baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool's verb ('aggregates open kitchen tickets per station and flags the bottleneck') and resource ('kitchen tickets per station'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_kitchen_stations and list_kitchen_tickets by describing it as a diagnostic first step before diving into individual tickets.

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 advises 'Call this first to diagnose kitchen throughput issues before drilling into individual tickets,' providing clear context for when to use this tool and implying that for deeper investigation, one should use list_kitchen_tickets or get_kitchen_ticket. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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