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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world semantics, so the description's added context is what counts: it discloses result ordering (on_dukkani=true first), that distance is only present 'when known', and that order_url is a Dukkani page where the customer completes the order over WhatsApp. Silent on empty-result behavior and on the limit cap of 15.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return-shape and ordering details. Every clause carries information; the only mild bloat is the parenthetical Arabic gloss on بقالات/تموينات, which is still purposeful for a Saudi-market 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by naming the returned fields (name, city, distance, order_url, map_url) and the WhatsApp ordering flow. What remains uncovered is failure/empty-result behavior and the meaning of on_dukkani=false rows, which for a lookup tool is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents city, district, latitude and longitude. The description adds the one thing the schema does not: that coordinates are an alternative search mode to city/district rather than an additional filter. It says nothing about limit (default 8, max 15), leaving that entirely to the schema — baseline 3 given high coverage.

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 (Find) and resource (neighbourhood groceries) with explicit source (Dukkani's public directory) and geographic scope (Saudi Arabia). The enumeration of the three search modes (district+city, city, coordinates) makes it unambiguous against siblings like prepare_grocery_order or list_cities without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use the Arabic district/city names when you have them', and the mode list implies when each parameter combination applies. It stops short of explicit routing ('if the user wants to order, use prepare_grocery_order', 'for city discovery use list_cities'), so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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