food_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a read or write, whether the token is an auth credential, what rate limits apply, or what the response contains.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single fragment conveys no actionable information and is not front-loaded around any real purpose.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, when to call it, or what its parameters mean.

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?

All three parameters (lat, long, token) have 0% schema description coverage and are completely unexplained in the description. The sole hints, "area" and "point", do not clarify the lat/long string formats or the role of token.

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?

"Marketing area for point" is a vague noun phrase with no verb and no stated action; it gestures at geography (area, point) but does not say what the tool does. It fails to distinguish food_area from siblings like food_reverse, geo, or food_place, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The description gives an agent nothing to decide between food_area and the many other food_* and geo tools.

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