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 the market restriction and hints at result fields (coordinates, address, phone, hours, amenity codes), but the field enumeration largely duplicates what the output schema carries, and there is no mention of pagination or result limits.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The description is nearly complete for a simple proximity search; the only minor gap is absence of any note on result limits or default radius, though those live in the schema.

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 radius, country, latitude, longitude, and max_results are already fully documented in the schema. The description's market list overlaps with the country parameter but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond it, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('McDonald's restaurants near a lat/long') and a scope constraint (ten named markets), which cleanly separates it from menu-oriented siblings like mcdonalds_menu or mcdonalds_restaurant_menu. It also names the returned content, so an agent knows exactly what this call yields.

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 implied by 'near a lat/long' and the market list, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternative tools (e.g., menu lookup), leaving the choice to inference.

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