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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds the returned facets (hours, order status, availability, wait windows), which is genuine behavioral context about what comes back, but it says nothing about result limits, radius behavior, or whether it performs fuzzy geocoding. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the action and returned facets before the disambiguation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A read-only lookup whose annotations cover safety, whose schema has 100% parameter coverage, and which has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description still adds value by naming the alternative tool and listing the dominant returned facets. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so each parameter's meaning and optionality is already documented in the schema. The description only generalizes the input modes (address, city, state, ZIP) that the schema already explains in detail. Baseline 3 is correct 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 (find) and resource (Domino's US stores) with scope (near an address, city, state, or ZIP) and explicitly enumerates the returned facets (hours, order status, service availability, wait windows). It also names the sibling it is not — dominos_store — so the agent can distinguish store discovery from single-store detail without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool to locate stores near a location, and use dominos_store instead for one known store's details. That is a direct when-to-use plus a named alternative, which is the top of the scale.

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