raisingcanes_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists exactly what data is returned (address, hours, amenities, services, Google Place id) and discloses the 404 behavior for directory paths. This is transparent about the tool's behavior beyond just 'gets a store'.

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 somewhat long but each sentence serves a purpose: main action, return fields, path source, and error condition. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. No fluff.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how to obtain the input, and a key error scenario. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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%, and the schema already explains the path parameter. The description adds context on where the path comes from and the error condition, which is useful. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the extra context justifies a slight bump above baseline.

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 returns one Raising Cane's store's detail, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but it's clear this is for a single store given a path, and it distinguishes from directory (listing) and nearby (search) by context.

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 explains where store paths come from (GET /raisingcanes/directory entries with is_store true) and warns that passing a directory path returns a 404. This gives clear guidance on how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like nearby or menu tools.

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