Decide restaurant fit

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'conservative' and returns 'unknown' rather than overclaiming, which goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the decision philosophy.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the key action and outputs, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, annotations, output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It explains the conservative nature and the three possible outcomes. Missing details like what 'reason codes' and 'evidence' entail are likely covered by the output schema, so the description is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds high-level behavioral context (conservatism, 'unknown' return) but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'decide' and resource 'restaurant fit', and clearly states it returns 'fit', 'not_fit', or 'unknown' with additional artifacts. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (compass_search finds restaurants, compass_enrich_restaurant enriches data) by focusing on the fit decision.

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 a conservative decision approach and warns against overclaiming, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit context on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose.

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