gucci_store_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: market only affects localization, not filtering; the name parameter does not filter; dateline-crossing is unsupported; and callers must supply bounds and center. It does not describe the response format, but the disclosed limitations are valuable for correct usage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details. Each sentence adds value without fluff. It efficiently covers the tool's scope, limitations, and prerequisites in a compact form.

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 the tool's complexity (7 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the most critical aspects: what the tool does, how market behaves, the need for geocoded bounds, and a key limitation (dateline-crossing). It does not explain return format or error handling, but for a search tool with detailed parameter context, it is largely complete.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that market is purely for localization, that coordinates and viewport bounds determine results, and that the name parameter (not in schema) does not filter. This enriches parameter understanding, especially the non-obvious behavior of market.

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 tool searches Gucci stores within a map viewport using a public GeoJSON feed. It specifies the exact resource (store locations) and the operation (search by viewport bounds), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gucci_store or gucci_stores which likely serve different purposes.

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: it requires pre-geocoded center and bounds, and explicitly notes that the market parameter does not filter by country and that dateline-crossing bounds are unsupported. It implies the tool is used when you have a geographic area in mind, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like gucci_stores or gucci_store.

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