A chain's seed-oil grade, frying oil, and cleanest orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and US-only scope. However, it does not mention error behavior for unknown chains, authentication needs, or whether the data is static, leaving gaps for a tool with no safety annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and fuzzy matching note is appended efficiently. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (grade, oil, best/worst items). It specifies US-only scope, making the tool's behavior complete for a single-parameter lookup.

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 sole parameter 'name' has 100% schema coverage (description 'Restaurant chain name'). The description adds significant value by explaining fuzzy matching behavior, which is beyond the schema.

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 'look up' and the specific resource 'one US restaurant chain', listing the exact data returned (grade, oil, items). It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for detailed info on a single chain, while get_rankings and search_chains serve different purposes.

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 provides context on fuzzy matching and implies use for specific chain details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_chains for finding chains or get_rankings for rankings.

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