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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the specific fields returned (address, hours, cuisine, photo) and the negative constraint 'No coordinates,' which prevents a wrong expectation about geodata.

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?

A single sentence that is fully front-loaded: resource and lookup method first, then the returned fields, then the negative constraint. No padding, no restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; the description still previews the key fields and flags the missing coordinates. With both params documented at 100% coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is complete enough to call correctly, though it could route more explicitly against the listing sibling.

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% and both params are documented in the schema, including the mutual-exclusion rule 'Supply either id or slug, not both.' The description restates 'by id or slug' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve detail) and resource (Chick-fil-A restaurant) plus the two lookup keys, so the agent knows this fetches one restaurant rather than listing many. It does not name the sibling chick_fil_a_locations to draw the contrast explicitly, but 'by id or slug' implies single-item retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'by id or slug' phrasing suggests this is the detail lookup versus the plural listing sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. An agent can infer the routing but must do the work itself.

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