Trouver un drive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the sort order (distance), the returned fields, and the service-type values (drive/relais/livraison). It omits result count, radius, or pagination behavior, which matters for a geo search.

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?

One compact sentence covering search criteria, sort order, and the return payload, with the primary purpose front-loaded and zero 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and enumerates the returned fields. The remaining gap is operational: no indication of how many stores come back or the search radius, which an agent might need to reason about coverage.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Code postal ou ville' with examples. The description restates the same meaning ('code postal ou une ville') without adding format, validation, or fallback behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Recherche les drives E.Leclerc') plus the scope ('proches d'un code postal ou d'une ville, triés par distance'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_store or search_product. It even links forward to the set_store sibling by noting the returned identifier is meant to be passed to it.

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?

It clearly establishes the triggering context (locating nearby stores from a postal code or city) and implicitly positions itself as the lookup step before set_store. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so no exclusions are covered.

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