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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (address, phone, coordinates, distance, specialties), but an output schema exists so this is essentially redundant with structured data. No mention of rate limits, pagination, or region coverage beyond the brand scope.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the brand scope and the action. Every clause carries information, though the trailing return-field list is 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?

For a read-only locator with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers brand scope, search modes, and returned data adequately. Missing only edge-case guidance (e.g., whether brand defaults to all stores when omitted), which is a minor gap.

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 lat/lng pairing, brand codes, and the search field. The description's mention of zip/city or coordinates reinforces the schema but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('search physical store locations') and scopes the brand coverage to Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, and Athleta. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like oldnavy_search or oldnavy_product, which serve a different function.

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 implies when to use it by naming the two search modes ('by zip/city or coordinates'), which is helpful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites, so the routing is left to inference.

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