papajohns_nearby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers ordering ('ordered nearest first'), response fields, 'total_in_radius and offset paging', and the empty-list behavior, giving the agent a strong picture of what to expect.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then cover return content, paging behavior, and empty results. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough detail for correct invocation: required inputs, result fields, ordering, paging, and empty-response behavior. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool is missing.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's existing definitions, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the exact resource ('Papa John's stores'), and scopes it precisely to 'near a coordinate' and 'within a radius of a latitude/longitude'. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic store-detail or directory tool.

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 makes the intended use case clear: when a user has coordinates and wants nearby Papa John's stores, this is the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives like papajohns_store or papajohns_directory, but the coordinate-based framing is sufficiently clear to route an agent correctly.

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