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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is established; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no-arg invocation returns the full list up to limit, and a genuinely zero-match search returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the edge-case behavior is valuable.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the no-args default, then per-parameter modes and the empty-result caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining gaps (default behavior, mode selection, empty-result handling) for a 6-param, 0-required tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the interaction semantics the schema doesn't: query and lat/lng are alternative search modes, lat/lng must be supplied together, and radius_km only sizes the geo search. That relationship mapping is more than the flat per-field descriptions provide.

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 (Locate) and resource (Prada's physical retail stores worldwide), and distinguishes itself from prada_search/prada_categories/prada_product by naming the store-locator as the source. An agent can tell at a glance which sibling is the store tool.

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?

Clearly explains the two operating modes: no-params returns the full worldwide list, query does free-text location search, and lat/lng does a geo-radius search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the mode selection is unambiguous.

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