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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses the non-obvious behavior that the same worldwide directory is returned for every market, preventing an agent from wrongly assuming locale scopes results. It also flags appointment availability and photos as returned traits, though it omits pagination or result-size 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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then filters, then the locale caveat; every sentence does work. The long field enumeration is informative but slightly padded given an output schema exists.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return shapes, and annotations cover the safety profile; params are fully specified. It is complete for calling the tool, though the field list partly duplicates the output 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents case-insensitivity, ISO-2 matching, and the locale language-only behavior, so the description mostly reinforces rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the 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?

It names a specific resource ('Hermes worldwide store directory') and enumerates exactly what each record contains, so an agent knows this is a store-locator listing rather than a product or search tool. There is no competing hermes_* store sibling to disambiguate against.

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?

It states the optional narrowing axes (country by name/ISO-2, or city) and front-loads the key constraint that locale changes language, not the store set. It gives clear context but does not explicitly contrast with an alternative (none exists in the hermes_ family).

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