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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing pagination behavior ('one page') and that records may originate from a map or an address index, hinting at heterogeneous result shapes. It stops short of describing ordering, total counts, or how coordinates vs. address entries differ.

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 padding. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the disambiguation guidance follows in the second, which is the ideal ordering for an agent scanning for routing signals.

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-field documentation is not required here. The description covers purpose, source, pagination, and sibling routing, while annotations carry the safety profile — nothing needed to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so page and page_size (including the 1-500 range and defaults) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces paging via 'one page' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Fetch one page of Shake Shack store-location records') and even names the underlying source ('server-rendered /locations page'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming shakeshack_nearby and shakeshack_store, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use-this vs alternatives: 'use shakeshack_nearby for proximity search or shakeshack_store for one store.' It also clarifies the source context (interactive map with coordinates or address index), which tells the agent what kind of results to expect versus the proximity tool.

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