zara_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it lists the returned fields, states that both lat/lng must be provided, and specifies that a no-store response returns an empty array rather than an error. This covers an important edge case and gives the agent a clear behavioral model of the endpoint.

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 well-structured: purpose, return fields, and key usage constraints are all included in three sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the critical behaviors are front-loaded.

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 store-locator endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the domain (Zara physical stores), the requirements, the returned fields, and the empty-response behavior. The schema covers the radius and filter semantics, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 value by explicitly stating 'lat and lng are both required' and emphasizing that the endpoint does not accept free-text zip/city searches, which reinforces the coordinate-based parameter semantics and prevents a common misuse. The filters are not expanded, but the schema already covers them.

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 nearby Zara physical stores.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from Zara product/category siblings by focusing on physical store locations and enumerating the returned store data (name, address, phone, etc.). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a location-based Zara store lookup is needed. It also states a critical constraint — lat and lng are both required and free-text zip/city search is not accepted — which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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