sonic_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return format (stores array with total_stores), the ordering (nearest first), pagination (one page at a time), the fields included (address, phone, coordinates, open/closed, amenities, hours, delivery links, distance_miles), and the empty-case behavior (empty array with total_stores 0, not an error). This is thorough and goes beyond what a typical description 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 efficiently written: it opens with the core action, then details the result payload, then gives usage guidance, and closes with an edge case. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a paginated geolocation search tool. It explains the result fields, sorting, pagination, empty behavior, and even contrasts with a sibling tool. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what each result contains and notes that distance_miles is included, so an agent knows it can rank without additional calls. Nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall behavior (nearest first, pagination) but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., radius default 25, page zero-based, limit 1-50). It mentions 'within a radius of a latitude/longitude' which reinforces the schema's parameter descriptions but does not introduce new semantics. Thus, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Find Sonic Drive-In restaurants near a coordinate.' It states the search scope (radius, latitude/longitude), ordering (nearest first), and pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sonic_sitemap by naming it and the condition under which to use this tool instead, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of paging GET /sonic/sitemap when you know roughly where you are looking.' This names the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool. It also explains that results carry full store detail, so no follow-up calls are needed, and defines the empty-result behavior, covering when it is appropriate to call and what to expect.

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