food_vendor

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, yet it discloses nothing about authentication (the 'token' parameter hints at it but is unexplained), rate limits, side effects, or what is returned.

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 words with zero waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; there is no front-loaded actionable information for an agent to act on.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs are required, what they mean, or what the call produces.

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% for all four parameters (lat, code, long, token), and the description offers no explanation of any of them. The meaning of 'code' versus 'token' and how lat/long relate to a vendor lookup is completely undocumented.

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?

"Vendor details" is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'food_vendor' without a verb or scope. It implies retrieval of vendor information but does not distinguish it from siblings like food_vendors, food_detail, or food_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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., food_vendors, food_detail). The agent is left to infer purpose and selection entirely on its own.

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