find_stores

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 mentions the return values ('store IDs, addresses, and phone numbers') but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the search is real-time or cached. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return values. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and returns, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or search limitations. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context for reliable use, yet it meets the minimum for a simple lookup tool.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query'. It reiterates that the query is an 'address or zip code', matching the schema's description. Since the schema already documents this well, the description provides no additional syntax, format, or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find nearby Domino's stores by address or zip code.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('Domino's stores'), and scope ('by address or zip code'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_store_info', which might retrieve details for a specific store rather than searching nearby ones, so it misses 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or direct comparisons to siblings such as 'get_store_info' or 'create_order'. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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