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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact data shape returned (fees, minimums, live availability, handoff modes, scheduling window) and the critical caveat that these records come from a different upstream and do not share ids with fiveguys_nearby. It stops short of rate limits, pagination, or ordering constraints, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the sibling disambiguation, then the chaining hint. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies the sibling differentiation and id-chaining guidance an agent needs to call this correctly in the Five Guys tool family.

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 every parameter (days, limit, radius, latitude, longitude, include_hours) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and ranges. The description only implies coordinate-based search and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Five Guys restaurants near a coordinate') and enumerates exactly what the ordering-platform record contains (delivery fee, minimums, availability, handoff modes, scheduling window, order URL). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling fiveguys_nearby by naming that tool and the upstream difference.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (fiveguys_nearby) and the condition that distinguishes it ('returns the marketing/locator record instead'), warns that store ids are not shared, and tells the agent the next step: use the result id with fiveguys_ordering_menu. Nothing is left to inference.

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