store_finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (find stores and return specific details) but lacks information on traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of 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?

The description is front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and output structure. The description is complete enough for a simple lookup tool but could be more informative.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'location' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find') and resources ('Publix grocery store locations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on store locations rather than products or deals. It specifies what information is returned (address, hours, phone number), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'near a zip code or city', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (product_search, weekly_deals). There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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