About Foran Delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a static facts surface with no side effects, but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness of the facts, or what the response looks like. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 sentences, zero waste. The content inventory comes first and the actionable usage instruction follows, which is correctly front-loaded for an agent scanning for a trigger.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema info tool this is close to complete: the agent knows what topics come back and when to reach for it. The only gap is the missing boundary against sibling info tools like foran_policy and foran_buying_guide.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 would normally apply. The description instead spends its words on the content topics it returns, which is useful but is coverage rather than parameter semantics, landing it at a solid middle score.

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 states a specific resource (facts about Foran Delivery) and enumerates the topics covered: live areas, delivery time, hours, cashback, promo, payments, contact, app links. That is far more informative than the title alone. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from overlapping siblings such as foran_policy or foran_find_location, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 an explicit trigger: "Call this first when a user asks what Foran is or where it delivers." That is clear sequencing guidance for a zero-param static-info tool. It does not state when NOT to use it, e.g. that store-level delivery checks belong to foran_find_location.

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