find_nearest_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the distance sorting, but it does not disclose what information is returned (store full details, hours, etc.), whether a default limit applies when 'limit' is omitted, or any potential rate limiting or error conditions. Without annotations, this is a notable gap in transparency for a query tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. Every word contributes value: 'Find', 'nearby', 'Pyaterochka stores', 'by coordinates', 'sorted by distance'. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and the core intent is front-loaded. This is an exemplary example of conciseness without under-specification.

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 simple list tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the fundamental purpose and ordering. However, it omits practical details an agent would need for reliable invocation: the meaning of 'limit' (whether it's a count or a distance radius), the nature of the returned data (store IDs, names, hours), and any default or edge-case behavior. It is sufficient for a basic call but not comprehensive enough to avoid guesswork.

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% and the schema itself contains no property descriptions. The description mentions 'coordinates' but does not explicitly map latitude and longitude, nor does it explain the semantics of 'limit' (e.g., maximum number of results). An agent would have to infer that latitude/longitude are the coordinates and that limit controls result count, which is not fully explicit. The description adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 ('find'), a clear resource ('Pyaterochka stores'), the input method ('by coordinates'), and the output ordering ('sorted by distance'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like 'find_store' (singular) and 'list_stores_in_area' (area-based), which serve different use cases. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core function.

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 usage context: when the agent has coordinates and wants nearby stores sorted by distance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'find_store' or 'list_stores_in_area', nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use this only when a center point is available'). The 'by coordinates' phrase gives some directional guidance, but no concrete comparison to alternatives is provided.

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