panera_geocode

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 return payload (latitude/longitude, city, state, country, formatted address) and the failure mode (returns a single result with resolved false rather than throwing an error). It does not cover rate limits or auth, but those are less critical for a simple look-up tool.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, what data it returns, and how failure is represented. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: input type, output contents, and error behavior. The exact response shape is not described, but the key decision-relevant information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the address parameter is already documented as 'Free-text address, city, or postal code'. The description repeats this phrase but adds no new semantic nuance for the parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Geocode a free-text address for Panera Bread's locator.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic geocoding siblings by naming Panera's own locator geocoder and its intended use—centering cafe searches on the site.

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?

Provides clear context: it resolves addresses using Panera's own locator and is identical to what the site uses to center a cafe search. This implies the tool should be used when Panera-specific geocoding is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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