Find nearby grocery stores

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

With NO annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does some work: it clarifies that pricing is chain-national (not per-store), which is a meaningful limitation the agent should know. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool returns (list of store objects?), whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, or behavior with no stores in range. For a read-oriented lookup tool with zero annotations, it adds value but could deepen the behavioral picture.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and ordering; the second adds the key pricing limitation and the intended use case. Every word earns its place, and the tool name is not tautologically restated.

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?

This is a moderately simple tool with 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and the main data limitation, but for a geospatial lookup with no output schema, the agent gains no information about the return shape (store names? distances? opening hours?) or what non-coordinate interactions look like (chain omitted behavior). Given the complexity (coordinate queries, radius, limit) and absence of output schema, additional description of the response would improve completeness.

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 for 5 undocumented parameters. The description helps marginally by implying the 'chain' param exists ('for a chain whose offer you already picked') and that coordinates are key. However, 'limit', 'radius_m', and the exact semantics of 'chain' (is it optional? what format?) are not explained in the prose, leaving the agent to infer from names and constraints alone.

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 verb+resource ('Grocery stores near a coordinate'), and notably clarifies the scope ('nearest first', 'chain-national — no per-store pricing'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining this answers 'which shop do I go to' rather than price comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_offers or cheapest_by_category, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 articulates a clear use case: answering which store to visit for a chain whose offer is already selected, and explains the limitation (chain-national pricing, no per-store). This provides strong context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for per-store pricing/price comparison scenarios, leaving exclusion guidance implicit.

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