list_stores_in_area

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 only states the action 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether the operation returns a list of store IDs, full store objects, or any pagination behavior. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about the operation's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four numeric parameters. While it is not verbose, the lack of additional context makes it feel insufficient rather than appropriately sized. The sentence does earn its place, but more detail is needed to make the tool usable, so it's a middle score.

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?

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the return format, coordinate constraints, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without knowing what the response looks like or how to correctly construct the rectangle. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'rectangular map area' but does not clarify how the four coordinates (top_latitude, bottom_latitude, left_longitude, right_longitude) form the rectangle, nor the expected value ranges or ordering. The parameter names are self-evident but the description adds almost no value beyond the names, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('Pyaterochka stores'), and the scope ('inside a rectangular map area'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_store and find_nearest_stores by specifying an area-based search rather than a single store or proximity-based search. However, it does not explicitly contrast these alternatives, so it slightly misses the top score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_nearest_stores or find_store. It only hints at the 'rectangular map area' scope, but doesn't state scenarios (e.g., 'use this when you need all stores in a region rather than the nearest one'). No exclusions or context is provided, leaving the choice to inference.

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