FoodParty deals

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds non-obvious behavior: deals are constrained to a time window and the list is empty outside it, plus limited-stock framing. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger and the key edge case. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool returns and the empty-outside-window edge case. It doesn't note the required lat/long or the Iran-bounded coordinate semantics, but the schema handles those.

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 100%, so all five parameters (lat, long, sort, limit, query) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List today's FoodParty flash deals') and qualifies scope with 'deep discounts, limited stock, time window'. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from close siblings like food_discounted_vendors or market_party_deals, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

'Use for "what's on a big discount right now"' gives a concrete situational trigger, which is real guidance. However, it names no alternative tool and no when-not condition, so an agent choosing between this and food_discounted_vendors gets no routing help.

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