find_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about result limits (the default limit of 10 is undocumented), what happens when neither query nor coordinates are supplied, or whether query and coordinates can be combined. Only the basic retrieval semantics are conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the search keys are presented before the coordinate alternative. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core inputs are named. Still, a search tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations should clarify the limit behavior and how query versus coordinates interact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does partly by mapping 'town, postcode or name' to the generic `query` parameter and 'coordinates' to latitude/longitude. However, it omits `limit` entirely and gives no format hints (e.g., postcode format, coordinate pair requirements, mutual exclusivity).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find stores') plus the search keys (town, postcode, name, or coordinates), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like store_map, store_availability, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though store_map, store_availability, and address_search sit right beside it. Usage is only implied by the name and the list of search keys.

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