fiveguys_ordering_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (ordering details, delivery fees, order minimums, etc.), the behavior of include_hours (dated calendars vs weekly), and the empty list behavior for no nearby stores. It also notes the id incompatibility with fiveguys_nearby. This is thorough, though it doesn't mention error handling beyond empty list or rate limits.

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 long but each sentence adds value. It starts with the core purpose, then details the unique data, explains the include_hours option, differentiates from the sibling, and gives usage guidance. No filler. It's structured logically, though it could be slightly more compact without losing information.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the type of data returned (ordering details, calendars, etc.), how to use the results (with fiveguys_ordering_menu), the difference from the locator endpoint, and the empty-list behavior. It also covers the parameters' effects. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: it explains that 'days' is only meaningful with include_hours, and it provides defaults for days, limit, and radius (7, 10, 20 respectively) which are not in the schema. It also clarifies that include_hours returns dated calendars. Latitude and longitude are obvious from schema. This exceeds baseline.

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 finds Five Guys restaurants near a coordinate with ordering details. It explicitly differentiates from fiveguys_nearby, noting this is a different upstream with commerce detail and per-store names. The verb 'find' and resource 'Five Guys restaurants' are specific and distinct.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for ordering-specific details that the locator endpoint lacks, and how to chain it with fiveguys_ordering_menu using the returned id. It also explains the difference from fiveguys_nearby, implying when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate all alternatives or conditions, but it's adequate.

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