find_nearby_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that it finds nearby locations based on address or zip, but does not disclose output format (e.g., distance, hours, details), sorting behavior, or any default limits beyond the schema. This is adequate for a simple read-only query, but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and target. No wasted words, and the key information 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention that locations include details like address/hours, but this is not critical for selecting the correct tool. The schema fully documents parameters, and all sibling tools are distinct.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; 'address' and 'limit' are already self-descriptive in the schema. The description merely reiterates the address usage, which is already in the property description.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('nearby Wendy's restaurant locations'). It also specifies the search input ('address or zip code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with menu, nutrition, and ordering.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool is for finding nearby locations. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all order-related, so the usage context is unambiguous. A brief note on when not to use it would push this to a 5.

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