Find AlzaBox lockers and Alza showrooms

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: no cart or login required, lockers come from a cached public map, hours are only resolved for the first 10 results, and the critical caveat that large items are excluded from the entire AlzaBox network. The `parcelShopId` identifier and the oversized-item routing behavior are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, scope and sort order, then trigger conditions, then caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the large-item/AlzaBox-network digression is lengthy relative to the core listing function and could be trimmed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still notes key output fields (name, address, GPS, distance, opening hours, parcelShopId). Caching, auth requirements, and the product-fit limitation are all disclosed, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by tying `limit` to observable behavior (hours looked up only for the first 10 lockers) and supplying a concrete call example with postal_code/types/limit. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for radius_km or the enum values, which are already documented.

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 ('Find') and resource ('AlzaBox parcel lockers and AlzaShop showrooms'), plus the geographic scope (Czech/Slovak postal code) and the returned fields. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_products, get_product, or the auth_* tools.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('when the user asks where the nearest AlzaBox or Alza store is, or where they could pick up an order') and routes the agent elsewhere for a related but different need ('to check a specific product, add it to the cart and read delivery_options or web_pickup_places'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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