market_find_nearby_depots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: it flags the tool as 'Experimental' and clarifies that response distances are in meters, which is not obvious from the input schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the experimental warning, and the critical output-unit/usage note. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only lookup with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It adds the non-obvious response unit (meters) and downstream usage guidance (choose returned depot IDs for product queries), while the schema and annotations cover safety and parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents latitude, longitude, and distance. The description reinforces that distance is a radius in km and calls coordinates 'explicit', but it does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Find nearby physical branches'), a specific method ('explicit coordinates and radius in km'), and the resource type. 'Explicit coordinates' also distinguishes this from geocoding/reverse-geocoding siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have explicit coordinates and a radius, and then use the returned depot IDs for product queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'explicit coordinates' phrasing implies the boundary against geocoding tools.

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