fiveguys_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hierarchical navigation behavior, what fields are returned (path, location_count, is_location), and how to continue traversal. It implies read-only semantics through 'browse' and 'returns,' but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or mention pagination/limits. Given the simple directory nature, this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it opens with the purpose, then details the hierarchy, explains the child fields, notes the deepest level, and closes with routing to alternatives. No fluff or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the key action and examples.

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 directory-browsing tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the full navigation model, how to construct and use the path, how to interpret children, and how to proceed to full store profiles. It also disambiguates from related endpoints. Nothing essential for the agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, but its description is minimal ('Optional. Directory path from a previous response's children[].path, e.g. "'). The tool description significantly enriches this by providing concrete examples ('il', 'il/chicago') and explaining that the path is used to navigate between hierarchy levels. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, so the description compensates for the thin schema text.

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 clearly states the tool's function: browsing the Five Guys restaurant directory hierarchically by state and city. It specifies the output at each level (states at root, cities under a state, restaurants under a city) with concrete examples, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like /fiveguys/search and /fiveguys/nearby by stating when to use each.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate or browse locations; use GET /fiveguys/search or /fiveguys/nearby to find them by query or coordinate instead.' It also explains how to use the returned child paths to navigate deeper, and how to get full profiles via /fiveguys/store. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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