pandamart_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that a location with no coverage returns an empty list rather than an error and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, radius, or error conditions for invalid coordinates, leaving some behavioral 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second lists the valuable output fields, and the third covers an important edge case. The most actionable information is front-loaded and 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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key return fields, the downstream use of the store code, and the empty-list behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly mention pagination semantics or how results are ordered, but the schema covers limit/offset and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to latitude/longitude as the search location and mentioning the returned 'code' field. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search pandamart darkstores near a location' and clarifies it returns grocery/convenience darkstores delivering to a lat/long. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pandamart_store_search or pandamart_store_products, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context: this tool finds darkstores delivering to a location and returns each store's code, which is 'the value the store and products endpoints take.' This implies downstream usage, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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