chick_fil_a_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by explicitly disclosing closed-day semantics (closed=true, empty times), the fact that coordinates are not returned because Chick-fil-A does not publish them, and the rejection of passing both params. It does not go as far as explaining error behavior when neither param is supplied, so a small gap remains.

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?

Every sentence carries a unique piece of information. The first states the purpose, the second the selection constraints, the third the closed-day encoding, and the last the coordinate limitation. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-location lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return fields (address, hours, cuisine, photo), the closed-day formatting, and the lack of coordinates. The main omission is specifying what happens when neither id nor slug is provided, which is small but relevant given the exclusive-or rule.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the mutual exclusivity constraint ('passing both is rejected') and hinting that slugs come from a directory response, which are useful beyond raw schema definitions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource – 'Get one Chick-fil-A restaurant's address and opening hours' – and clearly scopes the operation by id/slug. It naturally contrasts with the plural sibling chick_fil_a_locations without needing to name it. This makes the tool easy to disambiguate.

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 gives clear conditions for using the tool: exactly one of id or slug must be supplied, and passing both is rejected. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention the plural locations tool for batch retrieval. The usage is implied, not spelled out.

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