carmax_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free, public, and sourced from CarMax's server-rendered page, which adds meaningful context. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value: return fields, credential-free status, and data source. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description is nearly complete: it lists return content, notes the public/credential-free nature, and cites source. It does not mention how to obtain the id (e.g., via search), but this is a minor gap given the schema's clarity and the simple scope.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema's mention of the numeric path segment. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional value.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('CarMax store (physical location) detail'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like carmax_search or carmax_vehicle. It also enumerates the exact return fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies usage: provide a store id to get details for that store. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use carmax_stores to list all stores) or state when not to use this tool. Since siblings like carmax_stores exist, explicit differentiation would strengthen this dimension.

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