ikea_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the data source ('IKEA's own directory'), the returned fields, and the slug reusability. However, it does not address pagination, and since both parameters are optional in the schema, the behavior when called with zero arguments is left ambiguous despite the description presuming a 'requested country.'

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and output details plus the ikea_store chaining in the second. It loses a point for minor redundancy: 'physical store locations' and 'IKEA's own directory of physical locations' restate the same concept.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential output shape and the downstream integration with ikea_store. The notable gap is the unresolved tension between the schema declaring no required parameters and the description assuming a requested country, which an agent may need clarified to invoke the tool correctly.

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% — both 'country' and 'language' are already documented as lowercase 2-letter IKEA site codes. The description adds mild context by tying country to the directory scope and slugs to ikea_store, but provides no additional syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair, 'List IKEA physical store locations,' and enumerates the exact output fields (name, URL slug, region grouping, location type). It differentiates itself from the sibling ikea_store by explicitly stating that each returned slug is directly usable as ikea_store's slug input.

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 establishes clear usage context: it is a country-scoped directory listing, and the closing sentence implies the chaining workflow (list stores, then call ikea_store with the returned slug). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives beyond the ikea_store link, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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