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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is handled. The description adds meaningful context: the backend is Yext's public search, query understanding/geocoding happens server-side, and it behaves like the site's own search box. It doesn't discuss pagination limits or result shape, but the output schema exists.

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, zero waste: capability first, alternatives second. Well front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 search tool with a full output schema and annotations, nothing consequential is missing. The agent knows what it does, when to call it, and which sibling to use otherwise.

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 limit, query, and offset with defaults and ranges. The description adds the Yext geocoding behavior for query, but this is largely restated in the schema's own query description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (Five Guys restaurants), enumerates the accepted input types (city, ZIP, address, landmark), and explicitly names the sibling tools to use instead for other search modes.

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 fiveguys_nearby for a radius around coordinates, fiveguys_directory for locations, or fiveguys_store for one store.' This gives when-to-use and named alternatives in one sentence.

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