Restaurant Inspection Scores

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses side effects: starts an Apify Actor, may consume usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 rows. It also clarifies non-destructive behavior with 'without modifying government records,' which is not fully captured by the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose and exclusions first, followed by execution details. It uses three sentences and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers key operational aspects: data source, limits, timing, and read-only nature. It does not detail the exact return structure but mentions 'source-linked rows,' which is sufficient for basic use.

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 description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which already has comprehensive descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Inclusive ISO date YYYY-MM-DD.'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3.

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 is for official restaurant inspection scores, violations, and facility-history research. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Do not use for general property-code violations or childcare inspections,' making it immediately identifiable.

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?

It gives explicit positive usage ('Use for official restaurant inspection...') and negative guidance ('Do not use for...'), which directly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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