sevennow_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. It does an excellent job: it explains the distance is straight-line miles, clarifies that multiple alcohol sale windows per day reflect upstream's encoding of local law, and explicitly warns that an empty alcohol_sale_hours does not mean the store sells no alcohol. It also discloses the 404 behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the description's framing ('Find', 'resolves', 'carries') strongly implies a read operation.

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 dense but well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the output fields, then explains the alcohol windows nuance, then gives downstream usage guidance, and ends with the error case. Every sentence earns its place, though the alcohol window explanation is somewhat long. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, output fields, distance semantics, the alcohol window encoding nuance, downstream usage with store_id, and the 404 error case. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 the single 'address' parameter. The description adds value by elaborating on what forms the address can take ('free-text delivery address, street, city and state, or postal code') and by explaining how the address is used (resolved to nearest stores). This goes beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Find 7NOW delivery stores near an address.' It clearly states the input (free-text address, street/city/state, or postal code) and the output (nearest 7NOW-enabled 7-Eleven stores, nearest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sevennow_catalog and sevennow_search by focusing on store discovery by address, and it explicitly mentions the store_id linkage to other 7NOW endpoints.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to resolve an address to nearby 7NOW stores. It also tells the agent what to do with the result: 'Use store_id with GET /7now/catalog, /7now/categories, /7now/deals, /7now/offers or /7now/combos to browse that store.' It even covers the failure case (404 for ungeocodable or uncovered addresses), which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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