Personalized live suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only nature, use of venue history, live product re-fetching, and optional Google Maps evidence. It clearly states 'Never changes the basket.' This goes beyond a basic description, but lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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 highly concise: three sentences that front-load the core action and add essential constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: input intent, output count, read-only behavior, and optional features. Missing details on return structure or generation logic, but sufficient for a suggestion tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (read-only, live updates) but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: converting structured food intent (repeat, explore, balanced) into 3-5 read-only live Glovo choices. It specifies the input and output, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like glovo_browse_stores or glovo_search_store_items by focusing on personalized suggestions based on intent.

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 when to use (for personalized suggestions based on intent) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide comparisons to alternatives. No exclusions or context for choosing this over similar tools like glovo_get_store_recommendations.

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