kfc_nearby

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: empty list on no nearby results instead of an error, nearest-first sorting, distance in miles, and per-restaurant fields returned. It doesn't address errors for invalid coordinates or rate limits, but the core runtime behavior is well-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 compact and generally front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'near a location' and 'returns KFC restaurants near a latitude/longitude', but the remaining sentences each add concrete meaning (empty list behavior, result fields, occasion filtering).

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key context: how results are ordered and filtered, what an empty result means, and what fields are returned. It doesn't describe every possible edge case or return format, but the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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 gives 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying the opaque 'occasion' parameter with a concrete example ('e.g. only drive-thru locations'), which helps an agent know what a given order channel means. Latitude/longitude and result-limiting fields are already fully described in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('KFC restaurants near a location'), and adds concrete behavioral markers such as 'latitude/longitude', 'nearest first', and coordinate-based search. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kfc_store or kfc_stores, but the geospatial, nearest-first nature distinguishes it sufficiently.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided: the description states that it finds KFC restaurants near a coordinate, and the optional 'occasion' filter explains a when-to-filter case. However, it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings, nor give explicit exclusions or recommended alternatives.

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