panera_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a tree, omitting both params returns all states with cafe counts, passing state returns cities with cafe lists, and passing both narrows to one city. It also discloses the behavior for unmatched queries (empty list). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only (though implied by 'browse'), any authorization requirements, rate limits, or the exact structure of the return beyond listing fields. Since the tool is a list-locator, the read-only nature is inferred but not explicit; a security note or clarification on the response format would improve transparency, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with a one-sentence purpose, then breaks down the three usage patterns clearly, and ends with a note about empty results. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's scope, the next three explain the parameter combinations, and the last clarifies the return behavior. No fluff, no repetition of schema descriptions (it goes beyond them). It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately gives actionable guidance.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. Since there is no output schema, it helps enumerate the fields returned (id, name, street address, etc.) in the cafe list, which is useful but not fully exhaustive. It does not mention pagination, limit of results, or any additional filters (e.g., by amenities). For a locator tool with two optional parameters, this is largely sufficient, but a note on the exact return structure (e.g., shape of each cafe object) or any limits would make it more complete. Given the complexity is low without an output schema, the description covers most essentials, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter: state is 'Two-letter US state abbreviation. Omit to list every state.' and city is 'City name. Requires state. Omit to list every city in the state.' The description adds further meaning by explaining the hierarchical behavior: without both, returns state list; with state only, returns cities; with both, returns cafes for that city. This is beyond the schema because it explains the combination logic and the resulting levels. However, it does not specify the exact format of values (e.g., full names vs abbreviations) beyond 'two-letter' for state, and the schema description already covers the omit logic, so while valuable, it only partially adds semantic meaning beyond schema. Score is 4.

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's purpose: it browses Panera Bread's US cafe locator, returning a hierarchical tree of states, cities, and cafes. It specifies its scope (US) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like panera_cafe which likely returns individual cafe details, whereas this tool provides list-level browsing. The verb 'browse' plus the resource 'cafe locator tree' makes it distinct from the many store locator siblings (e.g., arbys_location, chick_fil_a_locations) that may have different returns or semantics.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: omit both state and city to list states, pass state to list cities, pass both state and city to narrow to one city. It also states the condition for empty results (state not served, no matching city) to return an empty list rather than an error, which is crucial for agent expectations. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this vs alternatives, by fully specifying its three usage patterns, it implies the tool is for all list-level queries; for detailed cafe info, an agent might infer to use panera_cafe, but this is not stated, so a small deduction for missing explicit alternatives.

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