zaxbys_store

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 return content (address, phone, coordinates, open status, hours, flags) which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether the store must be currently open, whether the data is cached, or what happens for an invalid store_id. The description is honest and consistent, but doesn't go beyond listing return fields.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second lists the return fields and the parameter source. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what it returns, where the parameter comes from, and what the tool is for. The only gap is the lack of error/edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid store_id), but for a simple lookup this is a minor omission.

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 the schema already documents store_id well. The description adds value by explaining that store_id comes from a /zaxbys/nearby result, which is a critical semantic detail not fully captured in the schema's description. This helps the agent know where to obtain the parameter value.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Zaxby's store's full detail'), and the key identifier ('by its store id'). It also enumerates the exact fields returned (address, phone, coordinates, current open status, per-channel hours, fulfillment/amenity flags), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like zaxbys_nearby (which returns a list) and zaxbys_menu (which returns menu data).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after obtaining a store_id from a GET /zaxbys/nearby result. It explicitly states the source of the store_id, which is a strong usage signal. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like zaxbys_nearby for list retrieval, so it falls just short of a 5.

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