ikea_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states that geo, hours, and price range are only present for full/small stores, and that order points and pick-up-only points return only the address. This preempts a likely misinterpretation of sparse responses. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but none are critical for a simple fetch.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the first sentence states purpose, the second covers return fields, and the third gives the slug provenance and the store-type caveat. The critical usage information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the conditional availability of those fields by store type, and how to obtain the only required parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it leaves optional parameter behavior to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining that slug is IKEA's own store URL slug and that it must be taken from an ikea_stores result's slug field, which resolves the schema's terse 'IKEA store URL slug'. Country and language are left to the schema, which already describes them.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get an IKEA store's detail') and enumerates the returned fields (address, geo coordinates, opening hours, price range). It distinguishes itself from sibling ikea_stores by emphasizing 'one' physical location and referencing ikea_stores as the source of the slug. This is precise and immediately differentiates the tool from the list and product/availability siblings.

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?

It names ikea_stores as the required upstream source of the slug, effectively instructing the agent on the correct workflow: call ikea_stores first, then pass its slug here. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use ikea_stores for lists'), so it stops short of full guidance, but the implied usage is clear.

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