arbys_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting behavior (nearest first), the radius hard-block limit (upstream blocks over 50), and the returned fields including open/closed status, hours, amenities, and pickup/delivery flags. It also notes the store_id linkage to menu/categories endpoints. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the schema covers page/limit defaults, so this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return details, then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details: radius cap, sorting, returned fields, and the relationship to menu/category endpoints. It doesn't describe the exact response envelope or error cases, but those are not required given the schema and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the radius hard-block detail and the nearest-first ordering, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for latitude/longitude/page/limit. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Arby's restaurants near a coordinate.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling arbys_location by specifying coordinate-based search with radius, and from arbys_directory/menu/categories by describing the returned fields and linking store_id to menu/category endpoints. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (coordinate-based search) and provides an alternative path: 'To search from a free-text address instead of coordinates, resolve it first with GET /geocoding/search.' This gives clear routing guidance relative to other tools.

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