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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: nearest-first ordering, real-time weekly hours, enabled fulfillment modes, and delivery fees.

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 with no filler; the purpose leads and the secondary details trail. It is dense but each clause earns its place; the long parenthetical list slightly hurts readability.

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?

For a read-only nearby-search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It even over-delivers by enumerating return fields, leaving only the sibling boundary (shakeshack_locations vs shakeshack_store) unaddressed.

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%, and the description adds no detail about latitude/longitude, limit, or radius beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Shake Shack locations near a coordinate') and adds scope detail (nearest first, return contents). It implicitly separates itself from shakeshack_store/shakeshack_locations, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 coordinate' implies the geographic-proximity use case and the location_id mention hints at the shakeshack_menu handoff, but there is no explicit when/when-not or named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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