get_restaurant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and notes that latitude/longitude affect delivery estimates, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the restaurant must be discovered first, or behavior when lat/long are omitted. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a scoped Args block. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool with no wasted filler, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still lists the main data returned. However, the absence of usage/routing guidance and of any auth or delivery-estimate caveats leaves the definition adequate but incomplete for a tool sitting among many restaurant and cart siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it explains restaurant_id as the Grubhub ID, latitude/longitude as delivery-estimate inputs, and order_type values (standard, catering) with default. It stops short of marking latitude/longitude as optional or noting order_type is a constrained set, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get restaurant details') and enumerates the returned data (menu, hours, ratings, delivery info), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not name siblings like search_restaurants or get_menu, so it fails to fully differentiate from adjacent tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings such as search_restaurants and get_menu, the description should explain when an agent reaches for get_restaurant rather than those, but it offers no routing or prerequisites (e.g., where restaurant_id comes from).

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