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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it discloses that each result carries org_key, which is the precondition for the get_store and create_*_link siblings, and this substitutes for the absent output schema. It stops short of describing pagination or result-shape limits beyond org_key.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence earns its place by naming the org_key handoff, which no structured field in this definition provides.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (address, phone, brands, team-outfitting flag, org_key) so an agent knows what a hit contains. Parameter behavior is fully covered by the schema. Minor gap: no mention of paging via cursor or how to proceed when results are empty.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including radius_mi defaults and the query fuzzy-match behavior — this sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the filter axes (name, chain, town, state, distance) and hints that team_dealer means 'outfit teams', but adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Find local sports stores') and enumerates the searchable axes (name, chain, town, state, distance) plus the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from get_store by saying results carry org_key 'for get_store', but never contrasts itself with the sibling search_clubs.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for store lookups and that get_store follows for detail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of what to do when a search returns nothing (only the schema's query description hints at fuzzy fallback).

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