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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: the return payload is store_id values, and the input language is Hebrew — both material to calling and chaining it correctly. It does not say what happens if both filters are given or whether zero matches is an error.

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 waste. The resource and filters come first and the chaining hint second, which is the right front-loading for a discovery tool.

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 rightly names the return value (store_id). For a 2-optional-param, no-required-args lookup tool this is nearly enough; only the both-filters-provided case and the empty-result behavior are left implicit.

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 optional parameters including the Hebrew example for city. The description's '(Hebrew)' note largely duplicates the schema's 'City in Hebrew, e.g. חיפה', adding no combination or precedence semantics.

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 Shufersal branches) plus the two filter axes (city or name). It also names the downstream sibling grocery_search, so an agent can immediately place it in the workflow rather than confusing it with grocery_search itself.

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?

Clear usage context: this is the lookup step that produces store_id values for grocery_search. It does not state a when-not condition (e.g., that this is Shufersal-only and other chains are not covered), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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