Check if a location can accept storefront orders

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explicitly guarantees no cart creation, no PaymentIntent, no Square payment, and no reliance on dashboard isOnboardingCompleted. It also clarifies the authoritative payment provider logic and CRAVEUP_API_KEY requirement, providing rich behavioral context.

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 dense but efficient, leading with the core purpose and then adding only essential constraints: what is verified, side-effect guarantees, payment provider logic, and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: object, checks, fallback behavior, side-effect absence, auth requirements, and intentionally avoided data sources. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents locationId at 100% coverage, including the 'omit to use CRAVEUP_LOCATION_ID' behavior. The description mentions CRAVEUP_API_KEY in an auth context but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly identifies the tool as a readiness probe and enumerates exactly what it checks: menu has products, takeout availability via a read-only GET, and payment configuration readiness. This makes both the verb and resource unambiguous and distinguishes it from onboarding or order-management siblings.

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 concrete context for when the result is meaningful, including the Square-authoritative-versus-Stripe fallback logic and the public/private API key distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so some sibling-routing is left to the agent.

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