instacart_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context by noting 'Public data sourced from Instacart's own store-discovery API', which signals a read-only, no-auth operation. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence slightly repeats 'Finds' but adds necessary detail about store types and returned identifiers. The public-data note is useful. No extraneous content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, the input, the output content (stores with identifiers), and the data source. It lacks explicit error handling or formatting details, but these are less critical for such a straightforward lookup.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter (postal_code) with 100% coverage. The description essentially repeats this ('near a postal code', 'US postal code') without adding format constraints or detailed usage semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Find Instacart stores near a postal code' with a specific verb and resource. It further defines the scope (US postal code) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it returns storefronts with identifiers needed for item lookups, which is distinct from item/search tools.

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 implies a usage workflow: use this tool to obtain store identifiers, then use those for item lookups ('each with the identifiers needed to look up its items and search suggestions'). This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, which would merit a 5.

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