chick_fil_a_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses the deliberate absence of address/hours, the total directory size, the deterministic alphabetical ordering without search, the relevance-ranked behavior with search, and the exact return fields. For a read-only directory browse, the important behavioral traits are fully covered.

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 description is four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and return contents, then adds behavioral constraints and a routing pointer to the detail endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly: return fields, pagination semantics, search behavior, data limitations, and the downstream endpoint for details. The description is complete for a tool of this 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the deterministic alphabetical ordering when search is omitted and framing the tool as a paginated directory browse. This is materially helpful even though page/per_page themselves get little extra explanation.

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 names a specific resource (Chick-fil-A restaurant directory), a clear action (browse/returns one page), and enumerates the exact fields returned: id, slug, name, US state, and page URL. It also differentiates itself from the sibling chick_fil_a_location by explicitly stating that this index carries no address or hours and directing the caller to the detail endpoint.

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?

It clearly explains when to use search vs. plain paging, noting that search is relevance-ranked while unfiltered calls return alphabetically for deterministic paging. It also gives an explicit alternative for the detail case: pass a slug to GET /chick-fil-a/location to get street address and opening hours. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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