wendys_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it reveals the underlying source (order.wendys.com's restaurant-selector proximity search), the ordering (nearest first), the input exclusivity/priority rule, and the full returned store field set. No unclear behavioral traits remain that would surprise an agent.

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 every block of information serves a real need: differentiation, input rules, and return-value expectations. However, it is a single dense run-on paragraph with heavy parentheticals, so it could be better structured for scanning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both inputs and return values; it does both thoroughly. It specifies result fields, ordering, distance unit, input alternatives, priority, and defaults are already in the schema. Nothing essential for correct invocation or result interpretation 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 value beyond the schema by clarifying that exactly one search form is required, that address takes priority when both forms are given, and that addresses are geocoded server-side by Wendy's own service. These are genuine semantic enhancements over the property descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Find Wendy's stores near a coordinate or address.' It further distinguishes itself from wendys_directory and wendys_store by noting they publish no geosearch, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 contrasts this tool with the classic-Yext locator endpoints (GET /wendys/directory, /wendys/store), explaining they lack geosearch. This tells an agent when to prefer wendys_nearby instead of those siblings. It also clarifies the required input form: exactly one of address or lat/long, with address taking priority if both are supplied.

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