find_stores

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields and a data-availability caveat ("opening hours where available"); however, it says nothing about result limits, pagination, behavior when geocoding fails, or rate constraints from the Nominatim dependency for a lookup that is clearly a read operation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then outputs, then usage examples. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 three parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, this description does the right amount of work: it explains the accepted input modes and enumerates return fields since no output schema exists. The remaining gap is failure and limit behavior, which an agent would want for a search that can silently return empty results.

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 three parameters including the anyOf location forms and the Nominatim note. The description restates the accepted input modes and the chain/radius filters but adds no format, precedence, or behavior detail beyond what the schema says — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find grocery stores near a location") plus the two filters (chain, radius), which is enough to distinguish it from search_products, find_stock, and get_promotions without opening a schema. The scope is explicit and there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

Provides concrete invocation examples ("find a Migros near me", "which Coop branches are in 8001?") and a sequencing hint — "before checking stock" — which implicitly routes to find_stock. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or stating when not to use it (e.g. when you already have a store ID).

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