prada_stores

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, and it delivers substantial context: all parameters are optional, the no-parameter call returns the full list capped by limit, lat/lng must be provided together, radius defaults to 50 with a 20000 maximum, and zero matches yield a well-formed empty result rather than an error. This goes well beyond the schema's structural requirements.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second covers default behavior and parameter modes, and the third covers the geo-radius edge case and empty-result behavior. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 6-parameter, 0-required tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers default invocation, all parameter modes, constraints, bounds, and edge-case behavior. Pagination and coordinate bounds remain in the schema, which is appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: query is clarified as free-text over city/country/store name, lat/lng are explicitly required together, and radius_km's default/max and dependency on lat/lng are restated in prose. It does not elaborate on offset pagination, but the schema already documents that.

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 the specific verb-object pair 'Locate Prada retail stores' and adds scope: physical retail stores worldwide via Prada's public store-locator. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling Prada tools like prada_product, prada_search, and prada_suggest by emphasizing physical stores rather than products or suggestions.

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 explains the three usage modes: no parameters returns the full worldwide list, query performs free-text location search, and lat/lng performs a geo-radius search with radius_km. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage contexts are unambiguous.

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