search_kroger_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches locations near a zip code, but doesn't disclose what the response contains, whether results are sorted or limited, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant transparency gap for a search 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the essential information. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter and an output schema), the description is somewhat complete for a basic location search. However, it lacks context about usage timing, relationship to sibling tools, and any limitations or special behavior. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the overall guidance is thin.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'near a zip code', which gives meaning to the single parameter 'zip_code'. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, optionality, or the default value (though the schema shows a default). The description provides basic but sufficient context for the parameter.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('locations'), naming both Kroger and King Soopers. It also indicates the search criterion (near a zip code), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_kroger' that likely searches other entities like products.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_kroger' or other location-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.

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