Search Jumbo Stores

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds what is returned (address, distance, opening hours, facilities). It does not disclose whether latitude/longitude must be supplied as a pair, what happens with zero arguments, or any result limits/pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences: the search capability and its inputs come first, the return payload second. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers both inputs and expected return fields adequately. The only minor gap is behavior when no argument is supplied, since all three parameters are optional.

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%, with each parameter documented including examples, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same three input modes without adding format rules (e.g., postal-code format, coordinate pairing) beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search nearby Jumbo supermarket stores') plus the accepted input modes (city, address, coordinates). It is clearly distinct from product/shopping-list siblings by resource, though it never names an alternative tool to differentiate explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by listing the acceptable query forms (city name, address, coordinates), so an agent can infer when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the geographic-search sibling or of what to do when geolocation is unavailable.

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