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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: result ordering ('nearest first'), the resolved-address prerequisite, and the distance unit (miles). It does not mention radius limits or result-count caps, which keeps it short of a 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?

A single sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by a compact colon-delimited list of return fields. No filler, no 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?

With an output schema present, the return fields need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description is complete for calling the tool correctly. Minor omissions (max results, search radius, failure behavior for unresolvable addresses) are the only gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a single fully documented 'address' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description's 'resolved delivery address' phrasing adds a slight framing nuance (delivery destination rather than arbitrary point) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (7NOW/7-Eleven delivery stores), the scoping condition (near a resolved delivery address), and exactly what is returned (store id, address, coordinates, distance in miles). An agent immediately knows this is a store-locator lookup, and it is unambiguous within the 7now family (catalog, search, product, deals).

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 a resolved delivery address' clearly signals the use case and the prerequisite that the address must be resolvable/geocodable. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no competing store-locator sibling exists, so the guidance is adequate.

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