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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted nearest-first and each record carries distance, address, hours, amenities and active delivery platforms. It does not discuss pagination or empty-result behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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, densely packed sentence that front-loads the search scope before enumerating the returned fields. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 a complete schema and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes them. For a low-complexity proximity search it is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 latitude, longitude, radius, limit and offset are all already documented with ranges and defaults. The description reinforces radius/lat-long usage but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (proximity search) and resource (Dunkin stores) with clear scope (within a radius of a lat/long, nearest first). This implicitly distinguishes it from dunkin_directory (full listing) and dunkin_store (single store), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'proximity search' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over dunkin_directory or dunkin_store, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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