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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only search, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of stores with IDs), or any rate limits or side effects. The only behavioral hint is that it returns stores for user selection, but that's more about usage flow than behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage instruction. No wasted words, though the parenthetical filter list is slightly redundant with the parameter descriptions.

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 covers the basic purpose and usage context, but with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of store objects with tenant_id) and any limitations. It's adequate but missing key details for an agent to call it confidently.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Japanese description clearly states the purpose: finding stores that accept AI-originated orders, filterable by store name, cuisine type, and area. It's a specific verb+resource, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like check_pickup_availability or list_menu, which are clearly different operations.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'When you don't know tenant_id, call this first and have the user select a store.' This provides clear upfront context and a workflow step, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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