search_locations

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 mentions the tool searches for locations but doesn't describe the search behavior (e.g., how results are sorted, whether it's paginated, error conditions, or rate limits). It states returns a 'Dictionary containing location search results' but gives no details on structure or content, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the formatting uses extra whitespace. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., sorting, pagination, errors) and the structure of the return dictionary. For a search tool with 4 parameters, it provides a baseline but could be more comprehensive about the search behavior and results.

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 50% (only radius_in_miles and limit have descriptions in the schema). The description compensates by providing clear semantics for all four parameters: zip_code (search near, with default), radius_in_miles (search radius with range), limit (results to return with range), and chain (filter by name). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially for zip_code and chain which lack schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for Kroger store locations') and resource ('near a zip code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_location_details' or 'check_location_exists' which focus on individual locations rather than searching. It's precise about what the tool does without being tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_location_exists' or 'get_location_details', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or contextual constraints. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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