wingstop_nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that results are sorted nearest first and include address, phone, hours, and fulfillment channels, and that the slug can be used for menu calls. However, it does not mention pagination limits, potential errors, or the behavior for out-of-range radius.

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 compact, with the core purpose front-loaded sculpt the response shape omitting needless filler. Every sentence adds value: the search criteria, sorting, the richness of results, and the chaining hint are all useful.

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 tool has only three parameters, all documented. For a search tool, the description explains the output's nature (list of stores with details) and how to chain it with menus. It could mention that an output schema is absent Abbey but that is not a major gap.

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%, and each parameter already has descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, though it confirms the format of coordinates (latitude/longitude). Since the schema fully covers semantics, a baseline 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 clearly states it searches Wingstop stores near a coordinate and returns them sorted nearest first. It specifies the resource (Wingstop stores) and the action (search near a coordinate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wingstop_store and wingstop_delivery_store by focusing on proximity search.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when you need to find stores near a location, and it notes the return includes enough detail that a follow-up GET /wingstop/store call may be unnecessary, guiding usage for efficiency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like wingstop_delivery_store.

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