kohls_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly documents the returned fields (address, phone, weekly hours, distance, store badges/services) and discloses the no-results edge case as a 'genuine empty list rather than an error,' which prevents an agent from misinterpreting a valid empty response as failure. It does not cover rate limits, geocoding failure behavior, or distance unit, but those are minor for a read-only search tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the action and input format come first, followed by the return fields and an edge-case note. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical 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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format, output fields, and the degenerate no-result case, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly. Minor gaps — what the badge/service values are and what distance units get returned — keep it from a perfect score.

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 already has 100% description coverage, defining 'search' as a free-text location (city/state, zip code, or address). The description adds only the 'nearby' qualifier, which is a marginal increment over the schema baseline.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource, 'Find nearby Kohl's store locations,' which unambiguously states what the tool does. It differentiates the tool from kohls_category, kohls_product_reviews, and kohls_suggest by clarifying the resource is physical store locations.

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 clearly establishes the usage scenario: search for physical Kohl's locations near a free-text city/state, zip code, or address. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the 'Find nearby ... physical store locations' framing gives a clear context for when to using a.

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