find_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without revealing any traits such as whether it requires authentication, what happens if no store is found, or any rate limits. For a read-only lookup this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and output. It contains no redundant words and is perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the input and output but omits potential edge cases (e.g., invalid address, no nearby store) and any prerequisites. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair.

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% and the parameter has a clear example. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the example helps but does not elevate beyond the schema.

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 resource ('nearest Pyaterochka store'), an input ('full address'), and an output ('store_id'). It is clear on the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'find_nearest_stores', but the singular address input and return of store_id give a distinct purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_nearest_stores' or 'list_stores_in_area'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description, which is minimal.

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