find_farms_with_online_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the detection method (fingerprinting against a specific platform list), the ranking behavior (DTC-confirmed farms first, then unconfirmed), and the optional product_focus filter. It lacks details on error handling or result format, but it is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 efficient and front-loaded. Five sentences cover purpose, detection method, ranking, usage guidance, and parameter semantics, with no fluff. The structure flows logically from 'what' to 'how' to 'when'.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, detection approach, ranking, and usage context. It does not explain return values or the three unspecified parameters, but these are somewhat secondary for a local search tool. Overall, it is more complete than average but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains product_focus (listing valid values) and leaves near, radius_km, and max_results undefined. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'near' format and radius_km units are not clarified. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 (`Find`) and resource (`independent farms near a location`) and clearly states the unique capability: detecting direct-to-consumer e-commerce via website fingerprinting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on farm-first DTC platforms and ranking confirmed stores first.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a user wants to buy direct from a farm without going through an aggregator or marketplace.' It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable. No mention of sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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