Discover Retail Context (Alias)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only identifies the tool as an alias and gives no information about side effects, return values, authentication requirements, or any other runtime behavior. This is a critical gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 short (two sentences) and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the first sentence is somewhat redundant by stating it is an alias without adding insight. The second sentence provides useful guidance but could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is severely incomplete. It fails to define what 'discover retail context' means, how to use the parameters, what the expected output is, or any preconditions. The description is insufficient for an agent to safely and effectively use the 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?

The input schema has three parameters (latitude, addressId, longitude) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or explain their purpose, format, or relationships. With no compensating information, the meaning of these parameters is entirely opaque to the agent.

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 the tool is a 'compatibility alias for retail/grocery store/search context' but does not explicitly describe its function. The term 'alias' suggests it is a deprecated version, but the actual operation (e.g., discovering context) is not explained. Compared to the sibling tool ninja_discover_vertical_context, this description lacks clarity on what the tool accomplishes.

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 instructs users to 'Prefer ninja_discover_vertical_context for new agents,' providing clear guidance on when to avoid this tool. This effectively differentiates the tool from its sibling and indicates it is for legacy compatibility only.

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