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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful workflow hint that results carry store numbers intended for follow-up calls, but does not mention ordering by distance, result truncation, or behavior when the radius yields nothing. Adequate but thin beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return, followed by a compact sibling map. The sibling enumeration is long but each entry earns its place by preventing a mis-call. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and all five parameters plus usage routing are covered. The only gap is the absence of an explicit usage trigger and any note about how distance ordering or empty results behave.

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%, and the schema fully documents latitude, longitude, occasion values, max_results range, and radius_miles range. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so it sits at the baseline where the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Find KFC restaurants nearest to a coordinate') and adds the scope of what comes back ('store numbers for follow-up'). The sibling-routing sentence explicitly distinguishes it from kfc_stores, kfc_menu, kfc_promotions, and kfc_delivery_estimate, so an agent can separate this geo-lookup from catalog lookups.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing conditions to every relevant sibling (store records, items, offers, serviceability), which is strong alternative guidance. What is missing is an explicit 'when to use this' trigger (e.g. 'use when you only have a coordinate and need nearby store numbers'), though the first sentence implies it.

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