starbucks_nearest_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the single-closest-store behavior, that only coordinates are returned (not details), that market selects the country site, and that a missing nearby store yields found=false rather than an error. This is explicit and useful edge-case disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and return value. The clause about Starbucks' own store locator adds context but is slightly non-essential; otherwise every sentence earns its place and the structure flows well from purpose to details to alternatives.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers required inputs, output shape, alternate endpoint, market behavior, and the no-match edge case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without an output schema.

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 lat, lng, and market. The description restates that both lat/lng are required and notes the market default (us), but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Locate the closest Starbucks to a coordinate.' It clearly states the output (coordinates and distance of the single closest store) and explicitly differentiates itself from starbucks_stores by noting this endpoint returns coordinates only, not store details.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative: 'Use /starbucks/stores for full store records,' which tells the agent when to choose the sibling instead. It also gives context for when this tool fits (map centering) and covers the no-nearby-store edge case, though it does not enumerate all similar sibling tools like datasets_starbucks_stores_nearby.

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