Store details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds only the "popular items" payload note. It omits whether city/latitude/longitude are needed for accurate pricing or availability, and does not mention error behavior for an unknown or out-of-city store_id — meaningful gaps for a location-dependent lookup.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, which is structurally fine. It is, however, under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity costs information an agent needs rather than saving it.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, and a location-scoped lookup mean the description carries real explanatory burden, yet it is one sentence. Nothing explains the relationship between store_id and the optional location parameters, nor how the returned popular items relate to foran_product_details.

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 coverage is 80% and the enum parameters (city, module, lat/long) are well documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing, notably leaving store_id — the only required parameter — without any hint of where it comes from or that it can be obtained from foran_list_stores.

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?

"Details of one store plus its popular items" restates the name/title ("Store details") almost verbatim, but the added "plus its popular items" does tell an agent what is returned beyond a bare store record. It never distinguishes itself from foran_list_stores (multiple stores) or foran_product_details, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after foran_list_stores or foran_search_products has produced a store_id, and no alternative is named. The agent has to guess whether this or foran_list_stores is the right entry point.

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