Get Store Opening Hours

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: 'Auto-refreshes stale data' reveals a caching/refresh behavior not indicated by annotations. The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive aspects, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place: first establishes core purpose, second adds filtering details and behavioral nuance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description provides good contextual coverage. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain return format, but this is reasonable given the annotations and clear purpose.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by store name, city, or openNow, which aligns with but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Get Alko store opening hours'), resource ('Alko store'), scope ('for today and tomorrow'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hours rather than availability, products, or store listings. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 about when to use this tool (to get opening hours for today/tomorrow with filtering capabilities). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use list_stores instead).

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