List Chain Outlets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the provenance precondition for the input, states that all outlets are returned, and enumerates the returned fields (vendor codes, names, delivery fees, distances). It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and 'Returns,' providing solid behavioral context without a safety annotation to lean on.

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 sentences with zero redundancy: the first states the operation, the second packs in input provenance, availability condition, return fields, and user purpose. Every clause earns its place and the core verb comes first.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers input source, availability condition, return contents, and end-user purpose. Minor gaps remain—no error behavior for an invalid chain_code and no explicit routing when total_outlets == 1—but nothing blocks a correct first call.

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 100% (chain_code has type and a Jollibee example), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining where the value comes from ('Use the chain_code from search_restaurants results') and under what condition it exists, which a schema alone cannot convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all outlet branches for a restaurant chain.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_restaurant_details and search_restaurants by focusing on branch-level listing and ends with the user-facing goal ('so the user can pick a specific branch').

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 gives clear context on when to invoke this tool: it explicitly names search_restaurants as the source of chain_code and states the availability condition ('only available when total_outlets > 1'), which implies the exclusion case. However, it does not name an explicit alternative to use when total_outlets == 1.

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