jcrew_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: it returns a full open-store directory (not a partial search), distance_miles is only populated when lat/lng are supplied, and omitting both yields the upstream's own ordering. These conditional behaviors go beyond what the schema or name conveys.

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: purpose first, return contents second, parameter semantics third. The conditional lat/lng guidance is dense but is the most compact way to convey the pairing requirement and its effect on the output.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work: it describes return contents, the site parameter's accepted values and default, and the distance-sorting behavior. It could mention pagination or size limits, but for a simple optional-parameter locator, an agent has what it needs to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it enumerates the accepted site values (jcrew or factory), states the default (jcrew), and explains the behavioral consequence of lat/lng (distance_miles populated) and of omitting them (upstream order). The schema only says site is 'the storefront whose stores to return,' so the description materially clarifies usage.

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 — "Find J.Crew or J.Crew Factory store locations" — and then specifies exactly what is returned (address, phone, coordinates, services, weekly hours). This clearly distinguishes jcrew_stores from sibling tools like jcrew_product, jcrew_search, and jcrew_categories, which the name alone would not fully disambiguate.

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 gives clear operational context: site selects the storefront and accepts jcrew or factory with a default, and lat/lng must be provided together for distance sorting. It does not explicitly route to or exclude alternatives, but for a self-contained locator this level of guidance is sufficient.

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