Find nearby Kohl's store locations by a free-text location (city/state, zip code, or address): address, phone, weekly hours, distance, and store badges/services. A search with no results returns a genuine empty list rather than an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail absent from annotations: a no-result search returns an empty list rather than an error, which changes how the agent should handle the response. It also enumerates the returned fields.
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, front-loaded with purpose and accepted input, with the empty-result caveat placed last. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names them. Between the description and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'search' parameter. It compensates well by enumerating the accepted formats (city/state, zip code, address), which the bare string schema does not convey.
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 (nearby Kohl's store locations) with the input modality spelled out. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like kohls_category, kohls_product_reviews, and kohls_suggest.
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 tells the agent exactly what the search accepts (city/state, zip code, or address), which is the key usage condition. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling set covers clearly different domains so there is little ambiguity to resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
