popeyes_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields (address, coordinates, phone, operator, amenity flags, full published hours), and states that an unknown store id returns a 404. This provides useful behavioral detail beyond just 'lookup'.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes all required differentiation and error behavior without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape, the trigger for use, and the error case. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, although some edge cases (e.g., invalid market) are not covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that store_id is numeric and sourced from /popeyes/locations, which clarifies the semantics slightly, but that is already embedded in the schema property description. It does not add significant extra meaning beyond 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Look up one Popeyes restaurant'), and differentiates it from the sibling tool /popeyes/locations by noting the lookup is by store id and not a coordinate/radius search. It also specifies the return content, so an agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: 'when the store id is already known, e.g. from a prior /popeyes/locations call'. It contrasts with coordinate/radius search, effectively listing the alternative. While it doesn't say 'use /popeyes/locations when you lack an id', the contrast and source reference make the guidance clear.

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