willys_nearest_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 only adds 'sorted by distance,' which is a useful but minimal trait. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the output contains, how errors occur, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 a single, concise Swedish sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. There is no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information. For such a short description, it is optimally concise.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is not enough. It does not explain the meaning of limit or onlyClickAndCollect, what the response looks like, or any preconditions. This is a minimal viable description but lacks the completeness needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a variety of scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints that lat/lng represent a coordinate. The optional parameters limit and onlyClickAndCollect are not explained at all, leaving their purpose and defaults ambiguous. An agent would not know how to set these without external knowledge.

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 it finds the nearest stores to a coordinate, sorted by distance. It uses specific language ('Närmaste butiker till en koordinat') that conveys a precise verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like willys_get_store (single store) or willys_find_stores (general store lookup) by focusing on coordinate-based proximity.

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 this tool should be used when you have a coordinate and need nearby stores, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like willys_find_stores or willys_search. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred alternatives, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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