List cached Mega MGC Coffee stores by region

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions automatic cache refresh, which is a key side effect, but omits details like potential network I/O, whether the cache is persisted, or the impact of the 'refreshStores' parameter. The disclosure is partial.

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 extremely concise with two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is only 12 words long. It fails to provide an overview of filtering logic, parameter relationships, or expected output format, leaving the agent underinformed for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it does not explain how to combine parameters like regionQuery and district, nor does it clarify default behaviors.

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 action ('List stores') and specifies the source ('from the local cache') and scope ('by region'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_mgc_stock (stock checking) and refresh_mgc_stores (cache refresh), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use for listing cached stores by region but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_mgc_stores for non-cached search, or check_mgc_stock for stock data). No 'when-not-to-use' or exclusions are mentioned.

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