mcdonalds_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 and does so thoroughly. It discloses the delivery deep-link points to a third-party platform, an empty nearby result returns an empty list rather than an error, and the country market coverage caveat. These are behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers return fields, caveats, and country guidance. Each sentence earns its place; the enumeration of returned fields is dense but directly useful given the absence of an 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, the description compensates by listing the full set of returned fields, including hours and amenity codes, and covers edge behavior (empty list) and market coverage. This is complete for an agent to select and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for radius, country, latitude, longitude, and max_results including ranges and defaults. The description reinforces country semantics but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Find McDonald's restaurants near a location,' a specific verb and resource, and then details the returned restaurant data (store id, address, hours, amenity codes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling menu/item endpoints by focusing on location-based restaurant lookup.

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 gives clear context: use coordinates to find restaurants and set country for non-US searches. It also contrasts the locator with menu and item endpoints, noting this locator covers more markets. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or give a when-not-to-use rule, so it misses the top tier.

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