zaxbys_nearby

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 the read-only nature (Find/Returns) and details the output content, including sorting (nearest first) and the cross-reference to the store endpoint. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are listed compactly, and the cross-reference is a useful addition. Every word contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return structure, and it does thoroughly (fields, sorting, cross-reference). It also covers the default behavior implicitly via parameters. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reiterates the radius concept and mentions 'nearest first', which relates to sorting but not to parameter semantics. It does not go beyond the schema, so 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?

States a clear verb-resource pair: 'Find Zaxby's stores near a coordinate.' It also enumerates the returned fields (address, phone, coordinates, open status, hours, flags), which distinguishes it from the menu or single-store sibling tools. The pairing note with /zaxbys/store further clarifies its scope.

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 when to use it (find nearby stores) but does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like zaxbys_store or zaxbys_menu. It mentions the store_id pairing with the store endpoint, which hints at using that for a single record, but stops short of a clear when-to-use vs. alternative statement.

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