adidas_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the upstream source, the ignored radius, the ~20 store cap, distance ordering, and the empty-list instead of error behavior. These are exactly the kinds of quirks an agent needs to set correct expectations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place: scope, return fields, required params, upstream behavior, and edge-case behavior. There is no fluff or repetition, making it dense but highly readable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (name, address, phone, coordinates, distance, hours, feature flags) and covers ordering, result limits, and empty-list behavior. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description confirms lat/lng are required and notes the upstream returns ~20 stores, which gives pagination context for the page parameter, but it adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with 'Find nearby Adidas stores' and specifies it returns physical retail stores nearest to a coordinate, which is a clear verb+resource+scope. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling adidas_store (singular) but does not explicitly name or contrast it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 makes the intended context obvious: call this when you need Adidas physical stores near a coordinate, with lat/lng required. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the coordinate-based usage and store-finder framing provide clear context without ambiguity.

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