find_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (address, hours, etc.) but lacks critical details: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination for results, how 'nearby' is defined (e.g., radius), or error handling. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences efficiently convey the core functionality and return data. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or result limits. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally viable but could be improved with more context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'location' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter is for searching 'near' a location, but this is redundant with the schema's examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 nearby Wingstop restaurant locations' specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('Wingstop restaurant locations'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on location search rather than ordering or menu functions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context through 'nearby' and the location parameter, suggesting this tool is for finding restaurants based on proximity. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools like 'get_menu' or 'create_order', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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