raisingcanes_nearby

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 it discloses substantial behavior: the reduced detail level (hours/phone absent from the Raising Cane's key), the ordering guarantee, pagination semantics through `total_in_radius` and `offset`, and the empty-list-instead-of-error edge case. It stops short of auth/rate-limit or error-body disclosure, leaving a small transparency gap.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive: purpose, result contents, detail-level caveat plus chaining, and pagination/edge-case behavior. The key idea leads — 'nearest first' appears in the first sentence — so the description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, though the prose is slightly dense.

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 enumerating the fields a result carries (distance in miles/km, address, coordinates, timezone, price tier, services) and by covering ordering, pagination, and no-result behavior. Minor gaps remain: latitude/longitude acceptance ranges are not stated and the relationship to siblings beyond the store endpoint is not explored, but this is well-covered for a 5-parameter nearby-search tool.

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 ranges and defaults already documented for limit, offset, radius, latitude, and longitude, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that `total_in_radius` is usually larger than one page and that `offset` walks through it, and it restates the radius unit, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already provides.

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 ('Find Raising Cane's stores near a coordinate, nearest first') and immediately states what is returned: stores within a radius, ordered by distance, with a concrete field list. It explicitly contrasts this proximity result with GET /raisingcanes/store, so an agent can distinguish it from the raisingcanes_store and raisingcanes_directory siblings without inspecting their schemas.

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 usage context: this is a proximity search carrying less detail than the store endpoint, and each result's 'path' chains into GET /raisingcanes/store for the full record — so an agent knows when the store tool is the next step. It does not spell out when to prefer raisingcanes_directory or other alternatives, so the guidance is contextual rather than an explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule.

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