ulta_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the key edge-case behavior: an unresolvable location or a radius with no stores returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error. It doesn't describe pagination or output structure, but for a store locator this is strong coverage.

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?

Four sentences, zero waste. The purpose is conveyed in the first sentence including the return fields, then the required inputs, the optional radius, and the empty-result behavior each earn their sentence. The description is front-loaded and every clause adds distinct information.

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 description covers the purpose, the input constraints and relationship between the two modes, the radius default and bounds, and edge-case empty results. Almost everything an agent needs to call it is present. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what happens if both search and lat/lng are provided simultaneously, but the 'Either search, or both lat and lng' wording implies mutual exclusivity.

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. The description adds meaningful behavioral meaning beyond the schema: search is first resolved to coordinates, lat/lng skip that step, the two modes are mutually exclusive, and empty-result behavior. This justifies a score higher than baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource (Ulta Beauty physical retail store locations) and lists exactly what is returned: name, phone, full address, hours, services, and coordinates. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many nearby retail/product/search siblings.

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 the two input modes: 'Either search, or both lat and lng, is required.' It explains that search is resolved to coordinates while lat/lng skip that resolution, and specifies radius bounds and default. This is explicit when-to-use guidance for the main usage decision.

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