Find a store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are ordered nearest first — but says nothing about search radius, result limits, or behavior when no store matches the query.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key scoping information (around a postcode/town, nearest first) is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is a little ambiguous in what it is qualifying, but nothing is wasted.

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 only two required params, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials. It is still thin on the operational details an agent would want — search radius, result count, and how to react to the 'retailer doesn't support nearest-first' case.

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%, with 'query' documented as a postcode or town with an example and 'store' as an enum pointing to list_stores. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (stores) and the scoping (around a postcode or town, nearest first), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_stores. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, but an agent can still tell it is a proximity lookup rather than a full listing.

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 parenthetical '(if the retailer supports it, see list_stores)' points at an alternative, but only obliquely — it does not say when to prefer find_stores over list_stores, or what to do if nearest-first ordering is unsupported. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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