uber_eats_apply_promo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the operation may fail if invalid/expired, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success (e.g., response shape, whether it mutates cart totals), what permissions are needed, or whether prior login is required. The error-behavior mention earns partial credit but coverage is thin for a mutation tool.

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 description is extremely concise — two sentences plus an args doc. Every line earns its place: it states the purpose, the context, the failure behavior, and the parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though its richness isn't detailed), which reduces the need to explain return values. With one simple parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, as a mutation tool with zero annotations, it lacks info about prerequisites (login, checkout flow position), success effects on cart state, and error handling beyond 'invalid or expired'. For such a simple tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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%, but there is only a single parameter (code) and the description explicitly explains it as a 'Promotion code string' with an example source (email or offers). The description does add meaning beyond the bare schema field title. Baseline for low-coverage would demand compensation, but with only one parameter and a clear semantic explanation provided, this is reasonably covered.

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 clearly states the verb-resource pair: apply a promo code. It also mentions the context (from email or offers) and a fallback behavior (may succeed or return an error). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the action is unique enough among the listed tools that differentiation is less critical.

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 or alternatives are given. The description implies this is for applying promo codes at checkout, but doesn't clarify sequencing (e.g., should be applied before place_order), whether it's needed before checkout_preview, or limitations. The 'from email or offers' hints at source but doesn't guide usage context.

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