shakeshack_locations

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It transparently explains the source field semantics (map vs list), that both sections round-trip through GET /shakeshack/store by path to get full structured address and coordinates, and that entries vary in initial fields. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then dives into necessary implementation details. It is not overly long, though it could be split into two sentences for readability, but each phrase adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two sections, a source field, pagination) and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what data to expect, the meaning of the source field, and the uniform resolution of coordinates through the store endpoint. It also explains the absence of structured addresses from the map section, completing the picture.

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 parameters (page and page_size) are well-documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., what page or page_size do exactly, or their interplay). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 that this tool browses Shake Shack's store index, returns one page of it, and explains the two sections (map and list) with their respective data. It distinguishes from siblings like shakeshack_store and shakeshack_nearby by focusing on the index browsing, not specific stores or nearby queries.

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 implies usage for browsing the full index, and the mention of 'one page' and pagination parameters sets the context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of shakeshack_store or shakeshack_nearby, nor does it mention alternatives. It is clear enough for common use cases.

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