kroger_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is returned (address, coordinates, phone, hours, drive-thru) and notes that hours include daily break hours, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention error behavior for invalid store_ids, whether the tool is read-only, or any rate limits. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and return fields; the second provides the cross-tool id context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the id semantics. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination (not applicable), and the lack of annotations is partially compensated by the explicit field list. The only notable gap is no mention of what happens if the store_id is invalid, but this is minor for a simple detail endpoint.

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% and the single parameter store_id is described as 'Kroger store/location id'. The description adds value by clarifying that store_id is the same id used by kroger-products and kroger-suggest, which helps the agent understand the id's provenance. However, it doesn't add format details (e.g., numeric vs string) beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Kroger store's detail'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (postal address, coordinates, phone, hours, drive-thru). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting store_id is the same id accepted by kroger-products and kroger-suggest, which helps disambiguate from other Kroger 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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you have a single store_id and need store details. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like kroger_search or kroger_suggest, but the mention that store_id is shared with kroger-products and kroger-suggest provides useful context for when this tool is appropriate.

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