fiveguys_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses valuable non-obvious behaviors: server-side geocoding, detailed result profile contents, pagination via total_results/offset, and the empty-list-returned instead of error for unresolved queries. A genuine search tool with this much disclosed behavior scores strongly, though it could additionally mention latency, auth, or rate-limit behavior.

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 every sentence earns its place: accepted query scope, geocoding behavior, result contents, paging, and the edge case. It front-loads the core action, adds behavior, then the return envelope, making it structured and readable enough for a description that must compensate for a missing output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this description delivers thorough context. It covers query semantics, server-side handling, exactly what fields each result carries, how pagination works, and the empty-results edge case. An agent has enough to choose this tool, call it, and interpret the response without additional guessing.

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 all parameters already have explanatory descriptions, which sets a baseline of 3. The tool description adds useful constraints (query geocoded server-side, limit range, paging semantics) but does not fundamentally change parameter meanings beyond the schema. With complete schema coverage, this is exactly the expected baseline score.

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 and resource: search Five Guys restaurants by free-text location, and it enumerates accepted query forms (city, ZIP, address, landmark) and clarifies that it mirrors the brand's own locator search. It helps an agent understand the tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like fiveguys_nearby, fiveguys_store, or fiveguys_directory.

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 contextual guidance that this tool accepts free-text location and geocodes it server-side, so no separate geocoding call is needed. However, it never says when to prefer or avoid this tool over sibling alternatives, and it offers no exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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