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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe open-world read. The description adds useful context about the returned fields (address, hours, service capabilities), but discloses nothing about the schema-level behaviors like delivery-zone matching or the delivery_only/include_availability interaction, which live only in the 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. Purpose and return content are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows immediately.

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?

Complete for a location-finder with an output schema that already defines return shape; the description needn't restate it, yet it helpfully summarizes the payload. Minor gap: it omits mention of the market scoping (US/CA) that constrains results, but that is well covered by the schema.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail, including ranges, defaults, and the delivery_only constraint. The description only gestures at 'near a coordinate,' which maps to the required latitude/longitude. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 (find), resource (Burger King locations), and scope (near a coordinate), plus what it returns (address, hours, service capabilities). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (burgerking_availability, burgerking_menu), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Routes the agent clearly: use this to locate restaurants from a coordinate, use burgerking_availability for a known location's availability, and burgerking_menu for its menu. This is explicit alternative guidance, though it doesn't state any 'when-not' conditions for this tool itself.

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