Cleanest or worst chains, ranked

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state read-only or destructive behavior. However, 'Ranked list' implies a read operation. The description lacks details on what happens if no data is available or if parameters are invalid.

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 a single sentence of 17 words, highly efficient. It is front-loaded with the title and immediately conveys the key functionality. No redundant information.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential logic: ranking by seed oil with order choice. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema (default 15), so omission in description is acceptable. No output schema exists, but the return type (list of chains) is inferable.

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% for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the 'order' parameter: 'order=best (cleanest first) or worst.' This provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum values.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a ranked list of chains by average seed oil per menu item, with order parameter for best/worst. The title 'Cleanest or worst chains, ranked' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_chain' (specific chain) and 'search_chains' (search functionality).

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of sibling tools implies usage for rankings, and the description is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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