sonic_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: results are sorted by path for reproducible paging, a filter matching nothing returns an empty array with total 0 (not an error), and it covers more pages than the directory. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool these are not critical. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations would have provided.

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 well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding necessary context (filtering, paging, comparison to directory, error behavior). Each sentence contributes distinct information; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure conceptually (entries split into country/state/city/address plus a path), and mentions paging and empty-result behavior. It does not specify exact field names or data types, but for an enumeration tool this is sufficient. It could have detailed response format more, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to call it 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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that city slugs come from GET /sonic/directory and that filtering by state/city narrows the list, which enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic types. It doesn't repeat defaults, relying on schema for those, which is fine.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Sonic Drive-In restaurants'), and a distinctive feature ('ready-made store paths'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like sonic_directory and sonic_store. It also explains the value proposition (no path parsing needed).

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for enumerating all published store pages, and it contrasts with sonic_directory (which counts listed restaurants). It also gives filter guidance (state/city, city slugs from /sonic/directory). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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