shakeshack_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining edge cases: phone is included 'when published', opening hours are 'omitted for a location that publishes no schedule' (e.g., stadium kiosks), and the response's path field 'always reports the canonical alias'. It also discloses the 404 behavior for invalid paths. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and return fields, then covers path formats and error behavior. It's longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds operational value. The structure could be improved with line breaks, but the content is well-organized.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns, the source of the path parameter, both accepted formats, the canonical alias behavior, and error conditions. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the response format (JSON structure), but the field enumeration largely compensates for the missing output schema.

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% (the single 'path' parameter is described as 'Store path from a /shakeshack/locations entry'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the two valid path formats, the canonical alias behavior, and the 404 condition. This elevates it 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's function: 'Get one Shake Shack store's detail' and enumerates the exact fields returned (postal address, coordinates, phone, opening hours, order types). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shakeshack_locations and shakeshack_nearby by focusing on a single store's detail rather than lists or nearby searches.

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 explains where the path parameter comes from ('Store paths come from GET /shakeshack/locations'), describes the two accepted path formats (aliased 'location/<slug>' and legacy 'node/<id>'), and specifies the 404 error condition for invalid paths. This gives an agent complete guidance on when and how to use this tool.

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