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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds useful output context (coordinates, phone, open/online status, availability and wait windows) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result limits, radius behavior, or ranking.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and location inputs before listing outputs. Every clause carries information, though the output enumeration makes it slightly heavy for one sentence.

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, the description needn't detail return values, and it still sketches them briefly. Combined with full schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only result-count/radius behavior is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents each parameter, including the city+state vs postal_code requirement and the Delivery/Carryout default. The description mirrors the accepted location forms but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific resource (Domino's US stores) and scope (near an address, city/state, or ZIP) and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a location-based store lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dominos_store, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'near an address, city/state, or ZIP' implies when to use it (proximity search), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to the sibling dominos_store (single-store lookup). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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