List every store in a specific mall by mall_id.
mall_id is the slug from list_malls() (e.g. 'mega-mall-bucuresti',
'king-of-prussia'). Also accepts a mall name fragment.
Args:
mall_id: Mall id or name fragment (e.g. 'mega-mall-bucuresti').
max_results: Maximum number of stores to return (1-500).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mall_id | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool accepts a partial name fragment in addition to an exact slug, and that max_results caps the output at 1-500. However, it does not mention the return shape, error behavior for unknown malls, or whether the list is sorted, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats the mall_id explanation twice: first in the introductory paragraph ('Also accepts a mall name fragment') and again in the Args section with the same examples. The 'Args' section is a second formatting of the same information, which adds redundancy rather than new content.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all inputs, the source of valid ids, and the result limit, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of any indication of the returned store objects' structure, but that is not needed to make a correct call. Overall the description is sufficient for its scope.
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 provides only property names and types with no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains mall_id (slug from list_malls(), with concrete examples, plus name-fragment fallback) and max_results (maximum number of stores, 1-500). This is far beyond what the schema alone offers.
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 opens with a specific verb-plus-object: 'List every store in a specific mall by mall_id.' This makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like stores_by_city, stores_by_category, and search_stores, which cover different query axes. The additional note that mall_id is the slug from list_malls() further anchors what the resource is.
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 gives clear context: use this tool when you have a mall identifier (either a slug from list_malls() or a name fragment). It names list_malls as the source of valid ids, implying a prerequisite call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., searching by city or category), but the sibling tool names make those alternatives evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct retrieval mode: mall discovery, stores within a mall, free-text search, and structured filters by category, city, or operator. search_stores overlaps conceptually with the structured filters, but the descriptions make the boundary reasonably clear.
list_malls and search_stores use a verb_noun pattern, mall_stores is noun_noun, and the three filter tools use stores_by_<field>. The conventions are readable and predictable within subgroups, but not uniform across the whole set.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory: one mall-level tool, one mall-scoped store tool, one free-text search, and three structured filters. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The set covers mall discovery and multiple store retrieval paths, including free-text and structured filters. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to enumerate all stores globally without a query or list valid categories/cities/operators, but agents can work around them using the provided tools.