sonic_location_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers. It discloses the output's key properties: ranked matches with lat/long, layer granularity values, confidence values, country restriction with default US, and empty-array behavior on no matches instead of an error. This is rich non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into essential behavioral details in an organized way. Every sentence carries information: what input is accepted, how the output connects to a sibling, what layer/confidence values mean, country handling, and no-match behavior. It is detailed but not padded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the behavioral contract well enough for correct invocation. It explains what the output contains, how to use the coordinates, how layers and confidence are expressed, and what happens when no match exists. There are no obvious missing facts that an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter already has a useful description, which places the baseline at 3. The tool description largely re-states what the schema says about `query` and `country` rather than adding new parameter-level nuance. It does contribute one relevant signal by framing the query as free text fed to Sonic nearby, but that is more purpose than parameter semantics.

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 action and resource: "Complete an address into coordinates for Sonic Drive-In store search." It clearly indicates the tool converts free-text geolocation input into coordinate-bearing suggestions for the Sonic nearby endpoint, distinguishing it from the neighboring sonic_nearby/sonic_locations tools. The purpose is unambiguous and not a restatement of the tool name.

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 clearly says this tool lets a caller run a Sonic restaurant search from free text instead of coordinates, and that the output lat/long feed directly into the nearby endpoint. This gives strong situational guidance for when to use it. However, it never explicitly names a sibling tool as an alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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