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 does well by disclosing that the API is Adidas's store-finder, that the upstream ignores radius, returns the nearest ~20 stores, and returns an empty list for locations without stores. It does not cover side effects or error conditions beyond the empty-list case, but for a read-only tool this is sufficiently transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return fields, requirements, and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or tautology.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers return fields explicitly and documents important edge cases and limits. It is complete enough for a find-nearby tool, though it could have mentioned that the result is a list-like condition more directly and whether there is any pagination concept beyond the page parameter in the schema.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, including the page parameter quirk. The description repeats that lat and lng are required and mentions that the upstream ignores caller-supplied radius, but no radius parameter exists, so this adds little semantic value to the actual parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'nearby Adidas stores' and lists the outputs, so an agent knows what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling adidas_store, relying on the plural 'stores' and 'nearest to a coordinate' to imply the scope.

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 provides clear usage context: call it with a coordinate to get nearby Adidas physical stores. It also explains lat and lng are required. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer adidas_store or adidas_search), so it falls short of a 5.

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