food_login_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does flag a genuinely important side effect — that a real SMS is sent — which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits rate limits, permission/auth needs, whether the OTP expires, and what the next step is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the parenthetical adds the one substantive fact. It is short rather than bloated, though the terseness leaves room that could have been used for parameter clarity.

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, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain which parameters are needed, what the call returns, or how to proceed afterward.

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 0% across three parameters (via, phone, token), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — notably not the distinction between 'via' and 'phone', nor what 'token' represents. The mention of OTP only weakly implies where the phone number goes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sends a food-login OTP. The 'food_login_' prefix and the sibling food_login_verify make the role in the login flow reasonably inferable, though the description itself never names the verify/refresh counterparts.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. The agent must infer this is the first step of a login flow before food_login_verify, and there is no statement about prerequisites, sequencing, or when to prefer ride_login_send's analogue.

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