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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose a result cap (20 stores), the returned fields, and a genuine data quirk about missing street addresses, which is real value. It says nothing about pagination, ranking by distance, auth requirements, or behavior when multiple locators are given.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result shape, with the address caveat last. No wasted wording, though the final sentence about city and coordinates reads a bit terse and could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partly compensates by listing return fields and the result limit. However, for a six-parameter, zero-coverage schema it leaves too much unexplained: radius units, what query and category filter on, and the lat/lon vs. place contract.

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 0% across six parameters, yet the description only explains lat, lon, and place. The query, radius, and category parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so half the inputs are unexplained and the radius unit (meters vs km) is unknown.

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 ("Search for physical stores") plus a geographic scope (Spain) and a proximity criterion (near a location). That is enough to separate it from stores-get, though the description never names the sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "near a location" and by the concrete hint to fall back on city plus coordinates when street addresses are missing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. stores-get, and no rule for whether lat/lon or place takes precedence when both are supplied.

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