oldnavy_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explaining search options, required lat/lng pairing, brand selection, and the return fields. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or invalid coordinates, but for a simple lookup tool this is sufficient.

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 core purpose, then parameter details, then return fields, then scope boundaries. It loses points for the 'Athlete'/'Athleta' typo and a slight redundancy between 'and/or coordinates' and 'Provide search, or both lat and lng'.

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 four-parameter store-locator with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: parameters, brand values, defaults, input constraints, return fields, and what the tool does not do. It also names the relevant alternative, making it complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 covers each parameter at 100%, but the description adds real value by enumerating brand values (`on`, `gap`, `br`, `at`) and the default. It also reinforces the combined lat/lng requirement that is only implicit in the schema descriptions.

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 concrete action (find physical store locations) and names the four supported brands. It also explicitly says this tool is location search only and differentiates it from oldnavy-product-availability, so an agent can tell the store locator apart from an inventory tool without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (location search) and when not to use it ('does not report per-item, per-store stock levels') while pointing to oldnavy-product-availability as the alternative. The reference is slightly imprecise because the actual sibling is named oldnavy_product_availability, but the boundary is still explicit.

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