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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, live-data nature is covered. The description adds that results are paged and that entries come with ready-made store paths, which is useful return context but is largely mirrored by the schema and output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the filters and paging, with no wasted clauses. Slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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 and annotations present, the description only needs to frame what the tool produces and how it is scoped; it does that. The one omission is pointing at the endpoint that supplies valid city slugs, which the city parameter documents itself.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the state/city filters and paging but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Names a specific resource (Sonic Drive-In restaurant listing) with the two filter dimensions and paging, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling listing tools like sonic_directory or sonic_nearby. It stops short of explicitly saying how it differs from those siblings, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 only implied: 'filterable by state and city and paged' suggests when the tool is useful, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, despite siblings like sonic_nearby (geo proximity) and sonic_directory (source of the city slugs) sitting right beside it.

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