ht_find_stores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add what they don't say; it does add the credentials prerequisite and the return fields, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about failure modes (no stores in ZIP, invalid credentials), rate limits, or how the limit interacts with results, so with annotations already covering safety this lands at a solid middle score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and ZIP scope first, then return values, then the downstream usage hint and credential requirement. No filler wording and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, a follow-up workflow, and the auth prerequisite. The only real gap is the untouched 'limit' parameter and any note on empty results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: 'zip' is explained as a ZIP code location filter, but the 'limit' parameter (default 5, max 20) is never mentioned in the description and the schema offers no prose either. The meaning of the location id output is well explained, but one of two inputs is undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('Harris Teeter stores near a ZIP code') and it even names the return fields: name, address, and 8-digit location id. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling ht_get_store, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 context for using the result: set HARRISTEETER_LOCATION_ID to search prices without the browser, which tells the agent why to call it and what to do next. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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