search_ubereats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output fields but does not disclose if authentication is needed, whether it scrapes or uses an API, rate limits, or any potential side effects. A read operation is implied, but not explicit.

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: three lines with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and every sentence adds value. It wastes no words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential input parameters and the overall functionality briefly. It lacks error handling or pagination details, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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%, meaning the JSON schema lacks descriptions. The description adds meaning for both parameters: 'city' with an example ('London') and 'max_results' with its default value. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 'List' and resource 'Uber Eats restaurants' with the context 'delivering in a city'. It also lists the fields returned (name, ETA, fee, url). This distinctly separates it from siblings like search_amazon or search_ikea.

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?

The description implies usage for listing Uber Eats restaurants in a city, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is minimal but the guidance is implicit.

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