shakeshack_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses the data source, the search behavior (radius, nearest first), and what each result carries: location_id, real-time weekly hours, enabled fulfillment modes, and delivery fee schedule. It does not cover edge cases like rate limits or behavior when no locations exist, but for a read-only proximity tool this is solid coverage.

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 first sentence is a clean front-loaded purpose statement. The rest is a long parenthetical about the API source, an enumeration of response fields, and the chaining hint to the menu endpoint. All sentences earn their place, though the middle parenthetical is somewhat dense with nested information.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It describes what the return contains, how results are ordered, the data source, and how to gateway to a related endpoint. There is no glaring missing information about return structure or chaining.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents latitude/longitude and limit/radius with clear defaults. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'nearest first' and 'within a radius', which is already implied by the parameters. It does not compensate with extra meaning for limits or defaults.

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 Shake Shack locations near a coordinate,' then details radius, nearest-first ordering, and explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling GET /shakeshack/locations, which reads the main site's store directory. An agent can immediately distinguish this tool from shakeshack_locations, shakeshack_store, and shakeshack_menu.

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 gives useful routing context by naming the data source (Olo-backed ordering API), contrasting it with the main site directory endpoint, and instructing the agent to pass location_id to GET /shakeshack/menu for the menu. It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements beyond this, but the alternative is clearly implied.

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