get_food_sub_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the safety profile clear. The description adds the behavioral constraint 'Premier exclusive', which informs the agent about access requirements beyond the annotations. No contradictions. The description could mention result format or side effects, but with annotations covering the basics, this is strong.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying distinct and valuable information. No filler or repetition. The core purpose and a key restriction (Premier exclusive) are front-loaded. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The description omits important context: what the output looks like (list of sub-categories? with IDs/names?), how region and language affect results, and whether pagination or ordering applies. Given no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description is incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 33% (only food_category_id is documented). The tool description does not explain the role of 'region' or 'language', leaving their meaning to the agent's inference. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. This hurts the agent's ability to construct correct invocations.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'food sub categories', and the context 'for a given food category'. The addition of 'Premier exclusive' further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_food_categories, which retrieves top-level categories.

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 usage when a food category ID is available and explicitly restricts to Premier users. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it suggest alternative tools (e.g., get_food_categories) for other scenarios. The guidance is present but minimal.

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