jumbo_search_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by naming the return fields (address, distance, opening hours, facilities). It omits behavior that matters here: all three parameters are optional, so nothing explains what happens on an empty call, whether authentication is required, or how far 'nearby' extends.

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 sentences with zero filler: purpose and accepted inputs come first, return contents second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate: it covers input modes and return fields. It leaves gaps an agent would want filled — behavior when no arguments are supplied, auth requirements, and any limit on the number of stores or the search radius.

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 100%, so the basline is 3: the schema already documents query as a Dutch city/address/postal code and gives coordinate examples. The description only restates the coordinate pair as latitude/longitude and adds no format, radius, or precedence rules for combining query with coordinates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search nearby Jumbo supermarket stores') plus the three search modalities (city name, address, coordinates), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from the product/receipt/shopping-list siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool returns or what it operates on.

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 implies the usage context (locating stores via one of three inputs) and no sibling tool competes for that job, so the alternative is implicit. However, it never states when to prefer query-based search versus coordinate search, nor that a query is unnecessary when coordinates are supplied. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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