sephora_stores

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the JS-executing browser backend, the required per-visit access token, and the bot-management challenge, with the result that responses may take longer. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It could be stronger by specifying failure behavior or explicitly confirming read-only, but the disclosed latency and mechanism are already advanced information.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields; the second explains the non-obvious latency behavior. Both sentences earn their place, though the second sentence is dense with technical background. This is appropriately sized for a tool with such a notable execution path.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description still mentions key returns: address, hours, BOPIS/curbside/same-day flags. The required coordinate parameters are covered by schema, and the latency caveat adds context important for planning. Some details like exact output structure or failure modes are missing, but the tool is simple and the provided inversion is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers all four parameters in documentation: latitude, longitude, radius, and limit with bounds and defaults. The description adds only 'near a coordinate', which is more of a purpose statement than new parameter semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's role: it is a 'Sephora store locator' that returns physical store locations near a coordinate. It then names the returned data categories, which differentiates it from sephora_search and other product-level Sephora endpoints. The description is specific and non-tautological.

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 when to use this tool: when a caller wants Sephora physical stores near a latitude/longitude. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the store-locator framing and required coordinates establish a clear usage context. A 5 would require explicit exclusion guidance.

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