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 and external-lookup nature are covered. The description adds only that matches are ranked and include coordinates, which is modest additional context; it says nothing about rate limits, upstream fallback, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema notes.

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 no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action and resource before the downstream intent. It earns every clause it uses.

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 explained, and the annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though a hint about the relationship to sonic_nearby's input would strengthen it further.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, country) are already documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ("Complete") and resource ("a partial address, city, state or ZIP"), plus the concrete output ("ranked matches with coordinates"). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sonic_nearby (which finds restaurants) and sonic_directory, since this tool only resolves a free-text string into geocoded suggestions.

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 description gives clear usage context by stating its purpose is "to feed a Sonic Drive-In nearby-restaurant search from free text," effectively routing the agent toward sonic_nearby as the downstream consumer. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., when a user already has a full address and could skip straight to the nearby search).

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