pandamart_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that supplying lat/long only affects optional computed fields and does not filter or reject the lookup, which is a valuable behavioral nuance. It also lists the return fields, giving the agent a clear picture of the output. It doesn't cover error conditions or auth, but for a straightforward get-by-code tool, this is adequate.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and return fields, then adds the behavioral note about lat/long. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the opening sentence repeats 'pandamart darkstore's detail' twice. Overall, it is well-structured and informative without being verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (get by code) and the description lists all major return fields, so the agent knows what to expect even without an output schema. It includes the key behavioral detail about lat/long. It doesn't discuss error handling or rate limits, but for a minimal lookup tool, this is sufficient. Given the complexity and schema richness, the description is complete enough.

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 parameters (code, market, latitude, longitude). The description adds value by clarifying that lat/long only affect optional computed fields, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the market parameter's role beyond the enum, but the schema does. Since the baseline is 3 with full coverage, the extra note justifies a slightly higher score, but not a 4 because the description doesn't elaborate on the code or market semantics beyond what's in 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 clearly states the tool retrieves details for a single pandamart darkstore by code, listing the specific fields returned (name, address, coordinates, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pandamart_search (which likely finds stores) and pandamart_store_products (which likely lists products). The verb 'Get' and resource 'pandamart darkstore's detail' are specific, and the mention of 'by code' differentiates it from store-search 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 implies this is for when you already have a store code (from /pandamart/search), and it explicitly explains that latitude/longitude only affect optional computed fields, not filtering. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the 'by code' phrasing and the note about lat/long behavior give enough context to select this tool over siblings.

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