recommend_food_experiences_tool

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 a high-level function and does not disclose required inputs, return format, side effects, or limitations, leaving the agent to guess about behavior.

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 a single concise sentence and easily front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified, which reduces its usefulness, so it earns a mid-range score rather than a higher one.

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 four parameters and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It does not explain how parameters relate to the outputs or offer any usage guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only hints at dietary preferences via 'dietary notes' and does not explain destination, budget_level, days, or their relationships. This is minimal compensation for four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recommend') and identifies the resource (food districts, meal themes, dietary notes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like route planning or budget estimation. However, it lacks mention of inputs like destination or budget, making it slightly less explicit than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether it is solely for food recommendations or how it complements tools like estimate_trip_budget_tool or suggest_packing_list_tool.

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