chipotle_restaurants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: results are ordered by distance, an empty list is returned rather than an error when no Chipotle is nearby, and the output includes a rich set of fields (hours, cross streets, capability flags). It doesn't mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the empty-list behavior and ordering are valuable transparency beyond what the schema shows.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Find Chipotle restaurants near a location') before enumerating the rich output fields. Every sentence adds value: the ordering behavior, the restaurant number's cross-endpoint significance, and the empty-list behavior. It's slightly long due to the field enumeration, but each detail is useful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 search/list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns (rich restaurant details), how results are ordered, and the empty-list edge case. It doesn't explain pagination behavior or how to interpret the capability flags, but those are minor gaps given the schema documents the parameters and the description covers the key behavioral aspects.

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 5 parameters. The description adds context that latitude/longitude define the search center and that results are ordered by distance, which reinforces the meaning of those params. However, it doesn't add detail about page/page_size/radius beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('Chipotle restaurants'), and a clear scope ('near a location... near a latitude/longitude, ordered by distance'). It also explicitly notes the restaurant number is the id every other Chipotle endpoint takes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chipotle_restaurant and chipotle_restaurant_menu. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to find Chipotle restaurants near a coordinate. It also explains the output includes the restaurant number that other Chipotle endpoints need, implying this is the entry point for restaurant-specific lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need a specific restaurant's menu, use chipotle_restaurant_menu). The context is clear but exclusions are not explicit.

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