get_location_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'detailed information' entails in the response. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns detailed information. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., address, hours, menu items), leaving the agent uncertain about the response format and content, which is a significant gap for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'location_id' fully documented in the schema (including an example). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage context, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Shake Shack location by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'find_locations' or 'get_ordering_info', which might also provide location-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what 'detailed information' includes compared to other tools (e.g., 'find_locations' might list locations, 'get_ordering_info' might provide ordering details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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