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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are ordered nearest-first and include distance, address, timezone, price tier and service options. It doesn't discuss pagination/limit behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what the tool does and then lists the key returned fields. Efficient, though the trailing field enumeration is slightly dense.

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 and complete parameter coverage, the description only needs to add selection and behavior context, which it does via ordering and scope. A note on how it differs from the directory/store siblings would make it fully complete.

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% with clear bounds and defaults for limit, offset, radius, latitude and longitude, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description only restates the lat/long radius concept without adding format or edge-case detail. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: proximity search for Raising Cane's stores around a lat/long, sorted nearest-first. It clearly conveys a geo search distinct from menu/promotion siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from raisingcanes_directory or raisingcanes_store.

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 the proximity framing (use when you have coordinates and want nearby stores), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative directory/store sibling that also surfaces locations.

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