query-nearby-stores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 只读 while adding genuinely new disclosure: the data is demo/fictional and not connected to the official McDonald's service. It also flags the downstream dependency on storeCode and beType, which matters behaviorally. It does not cover pagination or result limits.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and return fields first, workflow role second, safety/data caveat last. Efficient, though the disclaimer sentence is more housekeeping than operational guidance.

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-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, why the returned IDs matter downstream, and the demo-data caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the keyword parameter and its optionality are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is keyword-based, adding no syntax or example beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource (按关键词查附近门店) and enumerates the returned fields (storeCode、门店名、地址、beType). It also names its position in the ordering flow, which clearly separates it from siblings like query-meals and calculate-price.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 点餐流程第一步 and states that subsequent steps (menu lookup, price calculation, ordering) consume the storeCode and beType returned here, giving strong workflow context. It does not, however, name a specific alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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