kroger_set_store

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a mutating action ('Set') and a consequence (affects availability/prices), but it omits important details such as whether login is required, what happens when both or neither parameters are provided, error handling, or the response format. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool with no 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and method, the second explains the impact. Every word 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?

This is a simple tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is somewhat adequate. However, it does not mention what happens when a zip code is provided (auto-select nearest vs. return options), the return value, or prerequisites like login. These gaps reduce completeness for a tool in a complex integration context.

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 explains both parameters. The description only paraphrases the schema ('by zip code or store ID') and adds no extra semantic detail such as parameter precedence, format, or whether they are mutually exclusive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Set the preferred Kroger store location') with a defined resource and method ('by zip code or store ID'). It also explains the consequence ('determines product availability and prices'), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like search or cart operations.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for setting the preferred store, which is distinct from other sibling tools. It implies it should be used before product searches or cart operations to affect availability and pricing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though none seem necessary.

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