get_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: geo results are not paginated (and by extension cursor is ignored). It omits auth/permission needs and rate-limit behavior, so it is good but not complete.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the mode-switching rule. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still does not say what a store record contains or how results are ordered in non-geo mode. Otherwise it covers the mode selection and pagination caveat needed to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining cross-parameter interaction — lat/lng selects geo mode, radius_km optionally caps it, and pagination does not apply in geo mode. It adds real semantics rather than restating field docs.

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 ("List stores in the ShelfAtlas catalog") and immediately names the two query modes. Sibling tools are all offer/product/chain oriented, but the description never contrasts itself with list_chains, which is the closest potential source of confusion.

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?

Gives clear per-mode routing: use chain_slug to filter, or pass lat/lng for nearest-first geo search. It does not name an alternative tool or a 'when not to use this' case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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