cooperatives

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it implicitly frames this as a read-only lookup and the example ('8001' -> gmzh) hints at the return shape. It does not state what happens for an unknown or ambiguous postcode/town, or whether the lookup is exhaustive across regions.

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 with an inline example, front-loaded and free of padding. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but every element present earns its place.

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 lookup with an output schema, the core is covered, but edge-case behavior (unknown/ambiguous input, multiple cooperatives per region) and the relationship to sibling store/address tools are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies that the field accepts either a postcode or a town name and provides a concrete example value. This meaningfully extends beyond the bare 'Zip Or City' string property.

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 identifies the resource ('The Migros cooperative') and the input it maps from ('a postcode or town'), with a concrete example ('8001' -> gmzh). However, there is no explicit verb such as 'look up' or 'resolve', and nothing distinguishes it from sibling lookups like find_stores or address_search.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_stores, store_availability, or address_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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