arbys_location

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the response mirrors the GET /arbys/locations fields (address, hours, amenities, capability) minus distance, and explains why distance is absent due to no search center. This gives an agent an accurate expectation of the return payload.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds valuable details about the return shape without fluff. It is slightly verbose with the parenthetical explanation, but every segment contributes meaningful guidance.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with a well-described schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what data will be returned and what will be missing. It does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid store_id), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, meaning the schema already documents store_id completely. The description's 'one found via GET /arbys/locations' repeats the same example already present in the schema, adding no new semantic information. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up one Arby's restaurant by store id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like arbys_locations and arbys_directory by emphasizing 'one' and 'directly by its store id,' so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 description implies the correct usage context: use this when you already have a store id, possibly obtained from GET /arbys/locations, and it notes there is no search center. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like arbys_locations or arbys_directory, nor what conditions would make an alternative more appropriate.

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