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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat: the hours are as declared on the web and do not guarantee the store is currently open, which prevents an agent from over-claiming real-time status.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and its payload fields, followed by a short disclaimer sentence. Both earn their place, though the parentheticals make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (address, hours, closures, ludoteca), and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the optional country parameter's practical effect on results is left entirely to the schema.

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% and the single country parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its effect on language, prices and links. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 names a specific resource (Zacatrus physical stores) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: address, declared hours, upcoming closure days, and ludoteca availability. It is a list operation and implicitly distinguishable from store_stock and ludoteca_slots by virtue of being store-index data rather than stock or slot data, though it never names 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 context is only implied via the note that the hours match those shown when selecting in-store pickup, which hints at the pickup-selection workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as store_stock for inventory questions.

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