find_stores

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses location input types (zip, coords, address) with a geocoding note for addresses, and mentions that opening hours are returned where available. Lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but is adequate for a read-only lookup.

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 concise (two sentences plus a usage line) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (multiple location types, optional filters) and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, return fields (name, address, chain, location, hours), and typical use cases. It could mention pagination or sorting but is complete enough for a store locator.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the three near sub-schemas, noting the geocoding provider and performance preference for zip/coords over free-text address. It also mentions default radius (5 km) and chain filtering, supplementing the schema.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'grocery stores', with specific modifiers 'near a location, filtered by chain and search radius'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_stock and search_products by focusing on store location search rather than inventory or product search.

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 explicit use cases with examples: 'find a Migros near me', 'which Coop branches are in 8001?', or before checking stock. It implies appropriate contexts but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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