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 usefully adds a content caveat ('No address on the listing') and disclosing that results are paginated, but it says nothing about result counts, crawling limits, or how addresses are obtained elsewhere.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the return shape is front-loaded ahead of the caveat about missing addresses. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only directory endpoint with an output schema and full param coverage, this is nearly complete. The one gap is not routing the agent to chick_fil_a_location when a full address is actually needed, which the 'No address on the listing' caveat makes relevant.

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 page, search, and per_page are fully documented in the schema itself (defaults, 1-100 range, free-text semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 resource (Chick-fil-A restaurant directory) and scopes the return precisely: one paginated page with name, state and page URL. It implicitly differentiates from the singular chick_fil_a_location sibling by emphasizing 'directory' and 'one page,' but never names the detail sibling for a specific restaurant.

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?

Listing intent is implied by 'directory' and the pagination parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative chick_fil_a_location tool for full per-restaurant details. Usage must be inferred.

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