food_reverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Reverse geocode' says nothing about auth requirements (the token param suggests auth), rate limits, cost, accuracy, or response shape. Two words cannot cover a network call with a token.

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?

It is short, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness – two words that leave everything else unstated. Brevity here is a liability, not a virtue.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-word description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine required auth, coordinate format, or return content.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing: lat, long, and token are undocumented in both schema and description. The description must compensate for this gap and does not.

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 the operation 'reverse geocode', which is a specific verb+resource, but provides no detail about what service (food) it belongs to or what it returns. Against siblings like geo and food_area, an agent can only weakly infer this converts coordinates to a place.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The agent has no way to know this belongs to food delivery context vs ride context, or when to prefer geo over food_reverse.

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