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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value beyond them: the default no-param behavior (full worldwide list up to limit), the mutual requirement of lat/lng, and notably that zero matches returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error. It does not discuss pagination/offset 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then defaults, then parameter modes. Each sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description still notes the empty-result behavior. For a 6-param tool with 0% schema coverage, coverage is strong except for offset and any pagination guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains query semantics, that lat/lng are required together, and radius_km sizing, plus the limit cap. It leaves offset unexplained, which is the one gap.

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: 'Locate Prada's physical retail stores worldwide'. It distinguishes this from the sibling prada_search/prada_product tools by making clear this is a store locator, not a product lookup.

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?

Explains the usage modes well: all params optional, no-param returns the full list, query is free-text location, lat/lng together trigger a geo-radius search sized by radius_km. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-to-use-per-parameter guidance is clear and complete.

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