List stores in a city, optionally filtered by country.
City match is diacritic-insensitive and substring-tolerant ('bucuresti'
matches 'București'). Country accepts ro/us/gb/hu (or full names).
Args:
city: City name (e.g. 'Bucharest', 'Timisoara', 'London').
country: Optional country filter: ro, us, gb, hu.
max_results: Maximum number of stores to return (1-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by revealing the diacritic-insensitive, substring-tolerant matching behavior and the accepted country code set. It does not mention output format or ordering, but for a simple read-only list tool the disclosed traits are the important ones.
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 compact and well structured: a one-line summary, a key behavioral note, and a clean Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description provides enough invocation-critical detail: parameters are explained, matching semantics are specified, and the optional country filter is clarified. It could be slightly more complete by noting how it differs from search_stores or describing the return shape, but nothing needed to construct a valid call is missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with concrete details: city examples, valid country codes/full names, and the max_results range. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields.
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 and resource: 'List stores in a city, optionally filtered by country.' This clearly identifies both the action and the scope, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like stores_by_category or stores_by_operator because the focus is location-based lookup.
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 establishes clear usage context: use this tool when you need stores in a given city, with an optional country refinement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_stores or explain when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.
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.