find_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search capability but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), error handling, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about search parameters. Both sentences earn their place, and there's no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly listing behaviors).

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavior, return values, and error handling. For a search tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete information, though the schema helps with parameters.

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 both parameters (query and limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'city, state, or keyword' for the query parameter, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find Shake Shack restaurant locations' specifies the verb (find) and resource (locations). It distinguishes from siblings like get_location_details (which likely retrieves details for a specific location) and search_menu (which searches menu items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_featured_items might also involve locations).

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Can search by city, state, or keyword,' which implies when to use this tool (for location searches). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., use get_location_details for specific location info, search_menu for menu items) or any exclusions (e.g., not for ordering). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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