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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses result-shaping behavior an agent cannot get from the schema alone: results are capped at 10 stores and quantities are deliberately not disclosed. That is meaningful context about the output contract, though it says nothing about latency, auth, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question ('which stores can hand over this size'), followed by the scoping constraints. Slightly telegraphic phrasing in the first sentence, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to add what structure cannot: the pickup semantics, the 10-store cap, and the quantity-disclosure policy. It covers those adequately; a note on empty/no-match results would make it fully complete.

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%, with each parameter documented in-schema (size, articul, city_id, country with enum labels). The description's 'Omit size for items without sizes' merely restates the schema's size description, so it adds no incremental meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific capability: finding which kari stores in a given city can hand over a product in a given size, with the 'pickup' qualifier clarifying the fulfillment mode. It is distinguishable from find_stores (store listing) and get_product/search_products (catalog lookups), though it does not name those siblings 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 largely implied rather than stated: the agent must infer that articul comes from search_products and city_id from find_city (the schema supplies those links). The one explicit guideline, 'Omit size for items without sizes,' is a genuine conditional. No when-not or alternative-tool guidance is given.

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