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 only that latitude/longitude "provide location context" (the compute-distance behavior is already in the schema) and discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown/missing code.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the core fetch purpose and returned fields are front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing at the end.

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 needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It identifies purpose, key parameter, and sibling routing; coverage is nearly complete, with only minor behavioral detail left to structured fields.

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%, with code, market (with default), and latitude/longitude each documented in the schema. The description restates lat/long location context but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Fetch") and resource ("one pandamart store's details by `code`"), then enumerates the returned fields (address, coordinates, chain, budget, minimum order/fee, delivery/pickup). It names the sibling discovery tools, so an agent can distinguish it from pandamart_search and pandamart_store_search without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to pandamart_search / pandamart_store_search "to discover stores," implying this tool is for retrieving a store whose code is already known. Clear context, but it never states the inverse exclusion (e.g. that it cannot search by name) or any prerequisite framing.

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