find_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses API-side ordering, the search_scope string, the absence of per-store distance and search-center coordinates, and the zip-code fallback. These are non-obvious behavioral details that an agent would otherwise only learn at runtime.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then uses compact sections for behavioral caveats and parameter documentation. Every sentence provides decision-relevant detail with no filler.

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 purpose, all parameters, defaults/fallbacks, ordering, and key output quirks. Since an output schema is present, the description is appropriately complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining zip_code format and fallback, radius_miles range (1-100), and limit range (1-200). This adds units, constraints, and default behavior that the bare integer schema does not convey.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('King Soopers stores'), and the search criterion ('near a zip code'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like search_products and set_default_store without needing to name them.

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: use this tool when you need nearby King Soopers stores for a zip code, and it documents the fallback to KROGER_DEFAULT_ZIP. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, which prevents a full 5.

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