get_eligible_drive_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination, location-based filtering, eligibility filtering, and lists the store fields returned. However, given the sibling tools for session management and login (carrefour_refresh_session, carrefour_browser_login, carrefour_clear_session), the description could have disclosed whether authentication is required or whether this reads from live HTML or API endpoints. It's adequate but not rich.

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 two well-structured sentences: one for function/return values, one for usage context. The enumeration of return fields is a bit dense but acceptable. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sits among 50+ siblings including session management tools. The description covers purpose, return values, and context adequately. However, it could have mentioned pagination count or session/authentication expectations to be more complete given the surrounding tool ecosystem.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with examples. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Retrieves a paginated list of Carrefour drive stores eligible for ordering near a given location') with clear scope ('Carrefour France', 'drive/click-and-collect'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying eligibility (for ordering) and store type (drive stores), which separates it from generic store lookup tools.

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 indicates when to use it ('Useful for finding nearby drive/click-and-collect stores available for a specific city or postal code'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against alternatives like get_store_information_inserts, get_favorite_store, or get_store_finder_tools, nor does it state when NOT to use it.

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