walgreens_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are sorted nearest first, enumerates the returned fields (name, address, phone, hours, services), and states the data source is Walgreens' own public store locator. This goes beyond what the schema conveys, giving an agent a solid sense of what to expect.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently packs the input modes, ordering, and return fields. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only store finder with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the two input alternatives, sorting, and the payload contents. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but given the low complexity and self-contained nature of the tool, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their mutual exclusivity. The description adds context about 'near a latitude/longitude or a zip code' and 'nearest first,' but this is general behavior rather than parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource pair ('Find nearby Walgreens stores') and goes on to state exactly what is returned: stores near a coordinate or ZIP, nearest first, with name, address, phone, hours, and services. This clearly distinguishes it from the many other store-locator sibling tools (carmax_store, bestbuy_stores, etc.) by naming the brand and the query semantics.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need Walgreens locations near a place) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use X instead for other retailers' or 'use this when you need store details rather than product info.' The context is clear but relies on the tool name and obviousness rather than explicit guidance.

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