hm_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses edge-case behavior: unresolvable search and no store within the radius both return well-formed empty results rather than errors. It also reveals that lat/lng bypass coordinate resolution and that radius_meters defaults to 10000.

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?

All sentences are relevant and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter modes, defaults, and edge cases. There is a slight repetition of 'empty result rather than an error', but it is used for two distinct failure modes and does not erode clarity.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input alternatives, radius constraints, defaults, and error behavior. It names the return fields but not the exact output structure, which is a minor gap given there is no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by connecting parameters: search is resolved to coordinates, lat/lng skip that step, and radius_meters has a default and range. This provides the conditional logic needed to select the right invocation.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find nearby H&M physical stores' and lists return fields (name, phone, full address, coordinates). This clearly distinguishes hm_stores from product/search/catalog siblings like hm_product, hm_search, and hm_categories.

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 states when to use this tool — to find nearby H&M physical stores — and explains the two input modes: 'Either search, or both lat and lng, is required.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the physical-store scope and the parameter conditions give clear contextual guidance.

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